ABDIRAHMAN v Assetlink Link Services (17) Pty Limited

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ABDIRAHMAN & ORS v ASSETLINK LINK SERVICES (17) PTY LIMITED [2021] FCCA 90

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for preliminary discovery – respondent submitting this court has no power to order preliminary discovery and, in the alternative, that the grounds for preliminary discovery have not been made out.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, ss.43, 45, 81
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.1.05, item 3B in Pt.2 of Sch.3
Federal Court Rules 2011, r.7.23

Cases cited:
BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v Corelogic Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1556
Mondal v Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 1334
Shorey v One Key Workforce Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] FCA 1750

First Applicant: MOHAMED ABDIRAHMAN

Second Applicant: ALI AL SHAHER

Third Applicant: MOHAMED ALI

Fourth Applicant: IMRAN ASHKAR

Fifth Applicant: SADIK DEMIRAL

Sixth Applicant: PHOOLA SINGH DHILLON

Seventh Applicant: AHMED OSMAN

Eighth Applicant: HASAN REKABI

Ninth Applicant: MOHAMED SHARIF

Tenth Applicant: EMMANUEL ZERVAS

Respondent ASSETLINK LINK SERVICES (17) PTY LIMITED (ACN 126 171 079)

File Number: MLG 3521 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Riley

Hearing date: 16 December 2020

Date of last submission: 16 December 2020

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 27 January 2021

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor advocate for the applicants Yusuf Mohamud

Solicitors for the applicants: Starnet Legal

Counsel for the respondent: Andrew Denton

Solicitors for the respondent: Mark Diamond

DECLARATION

1. Item 3B in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 is valid.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 3521 of 2020

MOHAMED ABDIRAHMAN

First applicant

And

ALI AL SHAHER

Second applicant

And

MOHAMED ALI

Third applicant

And

IMRAN ASHKAR

Fourth applicant

And

SADIK DEMIRAL

Fifth applicant

And

PHOOLA SINGH DHILLON

Sixth applicant

And

AHMED OSMAN

Seventh applicant

And

HASAN REKABI

Eighth applicant

And

MOHAMED SHARIF

Ninth applicant

And

EMMANUEL ZERVAS

Tenth applicant

And

ASSETLINK LINK SERVICES (17) PTY LIMITED (ACN 126 171 079)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application for preliminary discovery brought under rule 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

2. The applicants are 10 prospective applicants in a prospective fair work application. The respondent was their employer and the prospective respondent to the fair work application. The respondent provided security services and the applicants were security guards.

3. Basically, the applicants sought preliminary discovery to help them decide whether to bring a fair work proceeding against the respondent.

4. The respondent argued that this court has no power to make an order for preliminary discovery, and, in the alternative, that the grounds for making an order for preliminary discovery have not been made out.

5. It was decided to deal with the question of the court’s power as a threshold issue. The question of whether the grounds for making an order for preliminary discovery will be dealt with separately, if it is held that the court does have power to make such an order.

6. The parties filed written submissions. The applicants’ written submissions were filed after the respondent’s but did…