This is my take on what you have said.
1 false statements... background not being in contention.
Contentious elements in cases are elements of a rule that gives rise to a claim of action. Simply said, contentiousness is determined by a rule or principle. if a rule doesn’t give rise to question of facts in a case, or facts to do not give rise to a question of rule then there is usually no contention. For instance ‘ if a person is walking at night they are guilty of a crime’ as a rule. If a person then drives during night, does the rule apply given they were driving? The contention is in the word walking.
In your case the background info did not give rise to a question of a rule so the decision maker moved on.
The statements made were not necessarily ‘false statements’ if the background info was not in question. As you said “"It's agreed by the parties..." No, it's not agreed by the parties!
It's a flat out lie, is it not?” Perhaps the background info was indisputable or you didn’t argue your point clearly.
2 Relevance example.
Without more knowledge about the material facts of your case it’s hard to determine what would be a relevant case fact in your case. If as you say the computer was the start of the so called issue, I would need further info to say that yes it should not be or yes it should be omitted... depending on the facts there may be reason for appeal. It depends.
3 one sided decision makers?
You stated that the decision maker said:"Absent any further detailed analysis of the relevant provisions by the applicant, I decide so and so"
they are basically saying that the applicant has not brought forward enough information or provided appropriate argument on the given material facts to apply the provisions of a rule in greater detail.
In short they are, in my opinion, saying that given what’s been said and what arguments have been presented and by no more, I’ve chosen this. It may imply that they knew something was missing or that they simply have chosen to decide on the matters brought before them and how persuasive the arguments were. It is not that they chose to omit something but that they may not have been presented with enough detail to decide on one matter rather than on the other.
4 you have referenced the “Sect 577 (a) of the FWA: The FWC must perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair and just;
Is above considered fair and just?”
fair and just can probably be read down given it’s subjectivity and attempt to find an objective meaning to those terms. Just might mean a settled outcome. Fair might mean equal resources or equal opportunity to present a case etc. It just depends on the context of the Fair Work Act.
If a decision is just in the eyes of the decision maker than it probably is to be considered a just outcome, especially if all procedures are followed and parties relatively benefitted from the decision.
5 “Sect 578 of the FWA: In performing functions or exercising powers, in relation to a matter, under a part of this Act (including this Part), the FWC must take into account:
(a) the objects of this Act, and any objects of the part of this Act; and (b) equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter;
That didn't happen, did it?”
Again, more info is needed about the situation.
This section works to outline the purpose of the FWA in terms of the FWC’s powers.
I don’t want to go into too much detail about the FWA as it is a large act that needs to be read as a whole to determine it’s said purpose.
As a brief reference point look at division 2 for the objects clause
“The object of this Act is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians by:”
It has a whole bunch of subsections that determine how the act should be construed.
As for “b) equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter” what proof have you that this hasn’t been the case? Has one party reaped more than they have sewn? Unjustly benefitted from the decision?
