Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd - [2022] FedCFamC2G 467

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 467

File number(s): PEG 52 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV

Date of judgment: 10 June 2022

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work – allegation of breach of general protection provisions – discrimination

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Programming of Court matters – amending of Court’s orders for programming to hearing

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Provision of transcripts – viewing of transcripts – furnishing of transcripts to parties at no or low cost

Legislation:
Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) s 570

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 134, 157-160

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth)

Cases cited: Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 183 CLR 273; (1995) 69 ALJR 423; (1995) 128 ALD 353; (1995) 39 ALD 206

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 17

Date of hearing: 10 June 2022

Place: Perth

Applicant: In person by phone via CISCO Webex

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Barrie

Solicitor for the Respondent: Barry.Nillson Lawyers
ORDERS

PEG 52 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
STEPHANE ARMET

Applicant

AND:
CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LUCEV

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JUNE 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Proceeding filed on 30 May 2022 be dismissed.
2.The issue of the provision of hard copies of the transcript, free of charge, to the Applicant, be reserved for further consideration by the Court.
3.Costs be reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore and revised from transcript)
JUDGE LUCEV

These are the Court’s reasons for judgment ex tempore in relation to an application in a proceeding (“Application in a Proceeding”) by the Applicant, Mr Stephane Armet (“Mr Armet”), to amend hearing dates, and an oral application for the provision of transcript to Mr Armet.
By order made on 20 May 2022, this matter was listed for hearing for two days on 20 and 21 February 2023. In the intervening period, that is, between May 2022 and February 2023, there was a requirement for compliance with various programming orders, that is, the filing of, consecutively, a defence, a reply, any further applicant’s affidavits, respondents’ affidavits, the applicant’s outline of submissions, the respondents’ outline of submissions, and the applicant’s outline of submissions in reply. The last filing date for the applicant’s outline of submissions in reply was 2 December 2022.
By way of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FedCFamC2G 467
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) was an application filed by Stephane Armet, the applicant, against CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd, the respondent, seeking to amend the programming orders and requesting the provision of a hard copy of the transcript of a previous hearing free of charge. The case was heard by Judge Lucev and involved issues of Fair Work, discrimination, and the provision of transcripts. The primary legal issue was whether the proposed amendments to the programming orders were practicable and if the applicant was entitled to a free hard copy of the transcript. The Court dismissed the application for amendments to the programming orders, finding them impracticable as they would have required simultaneous filing of submissions and affidavits. The Court also reserved the issue of providing a free hard copy of the transcript for further consideration.

Judge Lucev explained that the proposed programming orders were impracticable because they would require the applicant to file submissions and affidavits simultaneously, which would not assist the Court in understanding the evidence and legal issues. Furthermore, the Court was unable to accommodate the requested 2022 hearing, as the current February 2023 listing was the first available two-day timeslot for a Fair Work hearing. The Court found that there was no evidence of sufficient urgency that would warrant an expedited hearing. The Court also noted that the length of time between filing and hearing was not unusual for Fair Work matters in the Perth Registry. The issue of providing a free hard copy of the transcript was reserved for further consideration by the Court.

Orders