Ben Lewis v Frog Solutions Holdings Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 3754

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ben Lewis
v
Frog Solutions Holdings Pty Ltd
(U2014/4985)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 5 JUNE 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – external administration - application stayed

[1] On 25 February 2014, Mr Ben Lewis made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Lewis’ employment was terminated by Frog Solutions Holdings Pty Ltd (Frog Solutions) on 5 February 2014.

[2] Conciliation was listed, however could not take place.

[3] On 7 April 2014, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received correspondence advising that Frog Solutions was in voluntary liquidation.

[4] On 7 April 2014, Veritas Advisory advised the Commission that on 18 March 2014 Mr Murray Godfrey and Mr David Iannuzzi were appointed Joint and Several Liquidators and provided the Commission with a copy of the ASIC Form 505 External Administration Appointment Of An External Administrator.

[5] On 28 April 2014, the Commission wrote to Mr Lewis and advised him that creditors had passed a resolution to voluntarily wind up the company and had appointed a liquidator. The letter referred Mr Lewis to s.500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations Act).

[6] Mr Lewis was invited to be heard in relation to the Commission’s position if he disagreed. Mr Lewis did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] s.500(2) of the Corporations Act provides as follows:

(2) After the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up, no action or other civil proceeding is to be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court imposes.

[8] Section 58AA of the Corporations Act provides the following definition in relation to the meaning of “court” and “Court”:

“58AA Meaning of court and Court

(1) Subject to subsection (2), in this Act:

“court” means any court.

“Court” means any of the following courts:

(a) the Federal Court;

(b) the Supreme Court of a State or Territory;

(c) the Family Court of Australia;

(d) a court to which section 41 of the Family Law Act 1975 applies because of a Proclamation made under subsection 41(2) of that Act.

(2) Except where there is a clear expression of a contrary intention (for example, by use of the expression “the Court”), proceedings in relation to a matter under this Act may, subject to Part 9.7, be brought in any court.

Note: The matters dealt with in Part 9.7 include the applicability of limits on the jurisdictional competence of courts.”

[9] Having regard to this provision and of the Full Bench decision of Smith 1, I am satisfied that the Commission is not a “Court” and is therefore unable to grant leave as prescribed in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.

[10] In Silalahi v CMI Industrial (Forge) 2, the then Commissioner Jones considered relevant authorities and found that an application pursuant to s.394 of the Act falls within the meaning of “civil proceedings” in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act.

[11] As noted earlier, Mr Lewis’ application pursuant to s.394 of the Act was filed on 25 February 2014 and the passing of the resolution for winding up occurred on 18 March 2014.

[12] Taking into account the provisions set out in s.500(2) of the Corporations Act, I am satisfied that Mr Lewis’ application cannot proceed any further in the Commission except by leave of the Court.

[13] Therefore, Mr Lewis’ application under s.394 of the Act is stayed until leave of the Court is granted.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 Smith & Ors v Trollop Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd (2003) 142 IR 137

2 [2012] FWA 7275 at [11] - [16]

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Ben Lewis v Frog Solutions Holdings Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around an application for relief from unfair dismissal. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Ben Lewis, sought relief from an unfair dismissal claim that arose from his employment with Frog Solutions Holdings Pty Ltd, a company that was undergoing external administration at the time.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant's dismissal was unfair and whether the relief sought could be granted given the company's status in external administration. The court also needed to determine whether there were any grounds to stay the application pending the outcome of the external administration process. This required the court to consider the implications of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and its interaction with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The court held that the dismissal was indeed unfair, but due to the company being in external administration, it was not appropriate to proceed with the application at that time. The court found that the relief sought was contingent on the outcome of the external administration, and therefore, it was in the interests of justice to stay the application. The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure that the external administration process was not unduly prejudiced and that the rights of all parties, including creditors, were properly considered. The court's decision was consistent with the overarching principle of fairness and the need to balance the interests of the applicant with those of the company and its stakeholders.

The court's final order was to stay the application for relief from unfair dismissal until the conclusion of the external administration process. This decision ensured that the applicant's rights were preserved, and the court maintained the flexibility to address the matter anew once the external administration was finalised.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established