FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Bhalla v Weldon [2022] FedCFamC2G 86
File number(s): MLG 3982 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE Date of judgment: 17 February 2022 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Interlocutory Application – where the Applicant alleges the Respondents breached a Release Agreement – where the Applicant alleges the Respondents breached terms of the Big W stores Enterprise Agreement – where the Applicant alleges the Respondents are in contravention of section 340(1)(a)(ii), section 340(1)(b), section 351(1)(b) and section 344(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 – where the Respondents filed an Application in a Proceeding to strike out parts of the Applicant’s Further Amended Statement of Claim – Strike Out Application granted – Parties to re-plead – Applicant to file a Further Further Amended Statement of Claim – Respondents to file a Further Defence. Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009, ss.340(1)(a)(ii), 340(1)(b), 351(1)
Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.10, 1.05(3)(b)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r.16.21
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, s.143
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021, rr.13.10, 1.06Cases cited: Abela v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] FCA 96
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2015) 230 FCR 298
Fair Work Ombudsman v Devine Marine Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1365
Fair Work Ombudsman v Hu [2019] FCAFC 133
Fowler v Fowler (1859) 45 ER 97
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603
Harvey v Phillips (1956) 95 CLR 235
Maralinga Pty Ltd v Major Enterprises Pty Ltd (1973) 128 CLR 336
NSW Medical Defence Union v Transport Industries Insurance [1986] 6 NSWLR 740
Rodolico v Rodolico [2020] VSC 535
Sabapathy v Jetstar Airways [2021] FCAFC 25
Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28
The Trust Company (PTAL) Ltd v Amos [2019] QSC 92
Vantage Systems v Priolo Corporation (2015) WASCA 21Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 101 Date of hearing: 10 November 2021 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Millar Solicitor for the Applicant: Jewell Hancock Employment Lawyers Pty Ltd Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Tracey Solicitor for the Respondents: Minter Ellison ORDERS
MLG 3982 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: SURESH BHALLA
Applicant
AND: LISA WELDON
First Respondent
NATALIE MOOY
Second Respondent
ANGELO MARCELLINO (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:
17 FEBRUARY 2022
UPON NOTING THAT:
1.In respect of the 'Agreed Separate Questions for Determination', the Court has answered those questions in the following way:
(a)Question 1: No, the Release Agreement should not be set aside as alleged at paragraphs [87A] and [87B] of the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 1 September 2021 ('FASOC');
(b)Question 2: No, there was not a Completeness Representation as alleged in paragraph…
Continue reading Bhalla v Weldon
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bhalla v Weldon [2022] FedCFamC2G 86
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC2G 86
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Bhalla v Weldon, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Woolworths breached the terms of a Release Agreement or contravened a specific term outlined in the Office of Australian (OA) Agreement. The plaintiff, Bhalla, sought relief alleging that Woolworths had failed to adhere to the terms set out in the agreements. Woolworths defended the claims, asserting that they had not breached any terms of the agreements. The court was required to adjudicate on these contentions and decide if there was any merit to the plaintiff's claims.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Woolworths had indeed breached the Release Agreement or contravened the OA Term. The court meticulously examined the terms of both agreements and the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that Woolworths had not breached the Release Agreement or contravened the OA Term, as the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient evidence and legal basis. The court found that Woolworths had acted in accordance with the terms set forth in the agreements.
In reaching its decision, the court applied the relevant statutory and rule provisions regarding summary judgment. Under section 143 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, the court has the authority to grant summary judgment if it is satisfied that the opposing party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding. Rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 further supports this by allowing the court to dispose of claims by summary judgment if there is evidence that the opposing party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim. Based on these provisions, the court determined that the plaintiff had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the claims against Woolworths.
As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's application for strike out and summary judgment was dismissed. The court found that Woolworths had not breached the Release Agreement or contravened the OA Term, and consequently, the plaintiff's claims were without merit. The court's decision effectively concludes the litigation between the parties, with no further proceedings required on the claims at hand.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Woolworths had indeed breached the Release Agreement or contravened the OA Term. The court meticulously examined the terms of both agreements and the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that Woolworths had not breached the Release Agreement or contravened the OA Term, as the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient evidence and legal basis. The court found that Woolworths had acted in accordance with the terms set forth in the agreements.
In reaching its decision, the court applied the relevant statutory and rule provisions regarding summary judgment. Under section 143 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, the court has the authority to grant summary judgment if it is satisfied that the opposing party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding. Rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 further supports this by allowing the court to dispose of claims by summary judgment if there is evidence that the opposing party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim. Based on these provisions, the court determined that the plaintiff had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the claims against Woolworths.
As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's application for strike out and summary judgment was dismissed. The court found that Woolworths had not breached the Release Agreement or contravened the OA Term, and consequently, the plaintiff's claims were without merit. The court's decision effectively concludes the litigation between the parties, with no further proceedings required on the claims at hand.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
For all of the above reasons, Woolworths did not breach the Release Agreement or contravene the OA Term. The answer to Question 4 is 'no'.THE RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR STRIKE OUT/SUMMARY JUDGMENT I have set out earlier the relief sought by the Respondents in their Application in a Case dated 25 May 2021. I will deal firstly with the relief sought by proposed orders 1 and 2 in the Application in a Case, and then deal separately with proposed order 3 in the Application in a Case. Before doing so, I set out the relevant principles.Relevant Principles Section 143 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 ('FCFCOA Act') invests the Court with the power to deliver summary judgement. It provides as follows:143 Summary judgment(1)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:(a) the first party is prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and(b)the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.(2)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:(a)the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and(b)the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.(3)For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be:(a) hopeless; or(b) bound to fail;for it to have no reasonable prospect of success.(4)This section does not limit any powers that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has apart from this section.(5)This section does not apply if the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975.Note: For the power of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) to give summary judgment if the Court is exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975, see section 45A of that Act. Rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 ('Rules') relevantly provides as follows: 13.10 Disposal by summary judgment(1) This rule applies if, in a proceeding:(a)in relation to the whole or a part of a party’s claim there is evidence of the facts on which the claim or part is based; and(b) either:(i)there is evidence given by a party or by some responsible person that the opposing party has no answer to the claim or the part of the claim; or(ii)the Court is satisfied that the opposing party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim or the part of the claim.(2)The Court may give judgment on that claim or part of the claim and make any orders or directions that the Court considers appropriate.(3) If the Court gives judgment against a party who claims relief against the party obtaining the judgment, the Court may stay execution on, or other enforcement of, the judgment until determination of that claim.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.