One Door Closes, Another Opens: Navigating the Legal Maze After the Bunnings Whistleblower Ruling.

In a significant decision for corporate whistleblowers, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (FCFCA) has provided some clarity with respect to the extent of its power to hear claims for whistleblower protection under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). In the case of Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 832, Judge Champion determined that while the court can hear such claims when they are associated with other matters properly before it, it lacks the 'original jurisdiction' to make standalone declarations of contravention. This distinction is important for employees seeking to hold companies accountable for whistleblower reprisals, especially in light of a general protection claim brought in the FCFCA.

Case Background

The case involved Mr. Jason Macmartin, a former employee of Bunnings Group Pty Ltd, who was dismissed in April 2023 for alleged "serious misconduct". Mr. Macmartin initiated legal proceedings, claiming his dismissal constituted adverse action under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). He also alleged that Bunnings had breached the whistleblower protections outlined in Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act No. 50 of 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and his employment contract.

The central issue before the court was not the merits of the whistleblower claim itself, but whether the FCFCA had jurisdiction to hear and make rulings on these specific types of claims.

The Court's Jurisdiction: Original vs. Associated

In the court’s assessment, Judge Champion explains that the court's power to hear cases is categorised into 'original jurisdiction' and 'associated jurisdiction'. Original jurisdiction refers to matters that a court is explicitly empowered to hear by legislation. Associated jurisdiction allows a court to hear matters that are sufficiently connected to a claim within its original jurisdiction.

In this instance, there was no dispute that the court had original jurisdiction to hear Mr. Macmartin's claims under the FW Act. The critical question was whether this extended to Mr. Macmartin's whistleblower claims under the Corporations Act.

Judge Champion embarked on a detailed analysis of the relevant legislation and noted that while Section 566 of the FW Act expressly grants the court jurisdiction over civil matters arising under that Act, the Corporations Act does not contain a similar provision for the FCFCA.

The judgment highlighted that Part 9.6A of the Corporations Act, which deals with the jurisdiction of courts, expressly confers original jurisdiction on the Federal Court and the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories with respect to Corporations legislation, but conspicuously only confers the FCFCA (Division 1) with respect to civil matters arising under the Corporations legislation.

The Power to Make Declarations

 A key part of Mr. Macmartin's claim was a request for a declaration that Bunnings had contravened the whistleblower provisions. However, Judge Champion pointed to Section 141 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), which states that the court can only make such declarations "in relation to a matter in which it has original jurisdiction".

As the court found it did not have original jurisdiction over the Corporations Act whistleblower claims, it concluded it did not have the power to make the requested declaration. This finding was further supported by Section 1317J of the Corporations Act, which reserves the right to apply for a declaration of a civil penalty provision contravention to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Associated Jurisdiction

Despite these findings, the court did determine that it could hear the whistleblower claims under its 'associated jurisdiction'. Judge Champion reasoned that because the whistleblower claims were associated with the FW Act claims, which were properly before the court, the court could deal with them.

This means that while the court could not issue a standalone declaration of contravention, it could still grant other remedies, such as compensation, if a breach of the whistleblower protections was established.

Key Takeaways for Employees and Employers

This decision serves as a critical reminder of the complexities of navigating whistleblower laws in Australia. For individuals seeking to bring a whistleblower claim:

• The Federal Court of Australia has clear original jurisdiction to hear whistleblower matters under the Corporations Act. This case demonstrates that the Federal Circuit and Family Court's powers are more limited;

• An employee may be able to bring a whistleblower claim in the FCFCA if it is genuinely 'associated' with another claim that falls within the court's original jurisdiction, such as a general protections claim under the FW Act; and

• Even where the court can hear a whistleblower claim under its associated jurisdiction, it may not have the power to make a formal declaration that a company has contravened the law. However, other remedies like compensation may still be available.

For employers, this case underscores the importance of understanding the different legal avenues available to employees and the potential for whistleblower claims to be brought in conjunction with other employment-related disputes. Robust internal whistleblower policies and a clear understanding of the legislative landscape remain paramount.

The matter of Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd has been listed for a directions hearing to determine the next steps in the proceedings.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Michael Yeates is a Special Counsel at BlackBay lawyers with 25 years of experience in the legal field, including time as a former barrister, Dragan Gasic specialises in complex commercial disputes, including shareholder and partnership disputes, director duties, and personal and corporate insolvency. His broad expertise covers a range of sectors, such as joint ventures, franchising, commercial leases, commissions of inquiry, corporate crime, employment law, defamation, copyright, and mortgage enforcement.