Blackman v Leppard (No.2) - [2015] FCCA 2344

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLACKMAN v LEPPARD (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 2344

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Small claim – underpayment of wages – Court orders made – Court orders not complied with – Property Seizure and Sale Order issued – extension of time for Property Seizure and Sale Order – interpleader claim.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of time – Property Seizure and Sale Order.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether interpleader claim specific.

WORDS AND PHRASES – “insufficient” – “specify”.

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), Part 4 Division 6, ss.59, 83(2) and (3), 102
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.1.05(2)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr.18.11, 18.12, 18.13, 18.14

Ample Source International Limited v Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited; In the Matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited (No.6) [2011] FCA 1484; (2011) 285 ALR 488
Blackman v Leppard [2014] FCCA 1444
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421; (1972) 46 ALJR 701; [1972-73] ALR 1303
Londish & Ors v Gulf Pacific Pty Limited (1993) 45 FCR 128; (1993) 117 ALR 361
NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; (2004) 79 ALJR 1; (2004) 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021
Seafish Tasmania Pelagic Pty Ltd v Burke, Minister for the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [2013] FCA 782
Segal v Young [2001] NSWCA 141

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (6^th Edn) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), page 1101

Applicant:

MICHAEL DAMIEN BLACKMAN

Respondent:

BRENDAN RAYMOND LEPPARD

Claimant:

NICHOLAS ROY MITCHELL

Interpleader:

SHERIFF OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

File Number:

PEG 40 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Antoni Lucev

Hearing date:

3 August 2015 and on the papers

Date of Last Submission:

3 August 2015

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

31 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:

In person

For the Respondent:

In person

For the Sheriff:

Ms E Berry

For Mr N Mitchell the claimant by interpleader:

In person

ORDERS

Pursuant to s.102(4) of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) the operation of the Property (Seizure and Sale) Order issued by a Registrar of this Court on 1 September 2014 have its operation extended until 31 August 2016.
The claim by Nicholas Roy Mitchell by way of Interpleader for relief in these proceedings is dismissed.
That the affidavit of Brendan Raymond Leppard sworn 28 August 2015 be removed from the Court record and returned to Mr Leppard.
There be no order as to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 40 of 2014

MICHAEL DAMIEN BLACKMAN

Applicant

And

BRENDAN RAYMOND LEPPARD

Respondent

NICHOLAS ROY MITCHELL

Claimant

SHERIFF OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Interpleader

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By application filed on 27 May 2015 the Sheriff makes application for relief by Interpleader (“Interpleader Application”) under Part 4 Division 6 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (“Enforcement Act”). The Interpleader Application is supported by an affidavit…

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 Blackman v Leppard (No.2)

Details

AGLC: Blackman v Leppard (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2344
Case: [2015] FCCA 2344
Decision Date: 31 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Blackman v Leppard (No.2)*, the applicant, Mr. Blackman, sought an extension of time to enforce a Property Seizure and Sale Order previously made by the court against the respondent, Mr. Leppard, for underpayment of wages. The dispute arose from Mr. Leppard's non-compliance with the original court orders. An interpleader claim had also been filed, raising questions about its specificity.

The court was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time for the enforcement of the Property Seizure and Sale Order, and to consider the validity and specificity of the interpleader claim. The central legal issues revolved around the court's power to extend time for enforcement orders and the requirements for an interpleader claim to be considered sufficiently specific.

Judge Antoni Lucev reasoned that the court retained the power to extend time for the enforcement of its orders, provided there were sufficient grounds. The judge found that the applicant had demonstrated a valid reason for the delay in enforcing the order. Regarding the interpleader claim, the court held that it lacked the necessary specificity to proceed, as it did not adequately identify the property in dispute or the basis of the claim.

Consequently, the court granted the extension of time for the Property Seizure and Sale Order but dismissed the interpleader claim due to its lack of specificity.

Orders