Anderson v Crown Melbourne Ltd - [2008] FMCA 152

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDERSON v CROWN MELBOURNE LTD

[2008] FMCA 152

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Unlawful termination claim – medical certificate issued by doctor to enable Applicant’s attendance at football match in Perth – Applicant’s employment with Respondent terminated as a result of his absence from work to attend football match – termination not for prohibited reason.

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.240, 659, 659(2)(a)
Workplace Relations Regulations 2006 (Cth), rr.12.8, 12.8(a), 12.8(b)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Sperandio v Lynch [2006] FCA 1648
Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 247

Applicant:

NATHAN ANDERSON

Respondent:

CROWN MELBOURNE LTD

File number:

MLG 1424 of 2007

Judgment of:

Burchardt FM

Hearing date:

4 February 2008

Date of last submission:

4 February 2008

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

3 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr R.A. Millar

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Middletons

ORDERS

The application filed 16 October 2007 be dismissed.
Either one or both of the parties may apply for the making of ancillary orders within seven (7) days of the date of these orders, any such application to be addressed to the Associate to Federal Magistrate Burchardt and copied to the other party.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 1424 of 2007

NATHAN ANDERSON

Applicant

And

CROWN MELBOURNE LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 1 September 2007 the Applicant Nathan Anderson attended a football match between Essendon and West Coast at the Subiaco Oval in Perth.
Crown Melbourne Ltd (“Crown”), by whom Mr Anderson was at that time employed, sacked him because of his attendance at this football game and his trip to Perth to attend it.
Mr Anderson asserts that his dismissal contravened s.659 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (“the Act”). He says that his employment was terminated because of a temporary absence from work because of illness or injury (s.659(2)(a)), which is prohibited by that section.
Mr Anderson says that the prohibited termination arises because he had a sick leave certificate from a registered medical practitioner covering 1 September 2007. Crown, by way of contrast, says that the termination was not unlawful.
For the reasons that follow I agree with Crown that the termination was not for a prohibited reason within the meaning of s.659 of the Act.

The facts

I should stress at the outset that this case is very unusual in a number of respects. First of all, the relevant facts are to all effects and purposes not the subject of any dispute.
It is clear that Mr Anderson is a football fanatic. He says so himself and all the evidence points overwhelmingly to this conclusion.
By early August 2007 Mr Anderson was well aware that the game on 1 September 2007 might be the last game in which Kevin Sheedy would manage the Essendon Football Club. He discussed going to the game with a number of his colleagues.
In early August 2007 he approached Luke Overman and asked if Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Crown Melbourne Ltd

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2008] FMCA 152
Case: [2008] FMCA 152
Decision Date: 3 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anderson v Crown Melbourne Ltd was a case heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia where the plaintiff, Anderson, sought relief against the defendant, Crown Melbourne Ltd, due to alleged unlawful eviction. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a casino operator, unlawfully evicted him from their premises and that this eviction was in breach of a contract between the parties. The dispute centred around the interpretation of the terms of a membership agreement and whether the defendant had acted in accordance with those terms when they terminated the plaintiff’s membership.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the casino operator had the right to terminate the plaintiff’s membership under the terms of the membership agreement. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the casino had acted lawfully in terminating the membership and whether this action constituted an unlawful eviction. The court had to examine the terms of the membership agreement, the circumstances surrounding the termination, and whether the casino operator had followed the correct procedures as outlined in the agreement.

The court found that the casino operator had the right to terminate the plaintiff’s membership in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It was held that the casino operator had followed the correct procedures and that there was no evidence to suggest that the termination was unlawful or amounted to an eviction. The court emphasised that the membership agreement clearly outlined the circumstances under which membership could be terminated, and these were adhered to in this case. The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was forcibly removed from the premises, and therefore, the claim of unlawful eviction was unfounded.

As a result of the court’s findings, the application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The court did, however, allow for the possibility of ancillary orders being applied for within a specified timeframe. The orders provided that either party could apply for ancillary orders within seven days of the date of the court's orders, with such applications to be submitted to the Associate to Federal Magistrate Burchardt and copied to the other party.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application filed 16 October 2007 be dismissed.

Either one or both of the parties may apply for the making of ancillary orders within seven (7) days of the date of these orders, any such application to be addressed to the Associate to Federal Magistrate Burchardt and copied to the other party.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.