BROWN v DS and MJ Batten (No.2) - [2012] FMCA 436

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BROWN v DS & MJ BATTEN (No.2)

[2012] FMCA 436

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work Act.

Fair Work Act 2009, ss.401, 511, 570(2)(b), 611(2)(a), (b)

Saxena v PPF Management Limited [2011] FCA 395
Nimmo in the matter of an application for an inquiry relating to an election for an office in the Australian Education Union (NT Branch) (No 2) [2011] FCA 728

Applicant:

MICHAEL BROWN

Respondent:

DS & MJ BATTEN T/AS PANE IN THE GLASS

File Number:

SYG 1760 of 2011

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

Hearing date:

16 May 2012

Date of Last Submission:

16 May 2012

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

28 May 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr D Currie

Solicitors for the Applicant:

CBD Law

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Conditsis Lawyers

ORDERS

Application for costs dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1760 of 2011

MICHAEL BROWN

Applicant

And

DS & MJ BATTEN T/AS PANE IN THE GLASS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The substantive proceedings in this matter were heard between 28 and 29 March 2012 and judgment was delivered on 13 April 2012. The applicant’s claims that he was wrongfully dismissed from his employment with the respondents as a result of him exercising his workplace rights and for financial penalties to be imposed upon the respondents were not successful. The applicant did succeed in a claim for reimbursement of moneys deducted from his final payment by the respondents in the sum of $313.27. The respondents now seek an order for costs against the applicant.
In a document entitled “Application for Costs” and headed “In Fair Work Australia” the respondents make application for costs under s.611(2)(a) and (b) of the Fair Work Act 2009[1] or alternatively under s.570(2)(b) of that Act. This court is not Fair Work Australia, it is the Federal Magistrates Court. Applications filed in it should be filed with the appropriate headings. Section 511 and also Section 401 to which reference was made in a letter that the respondents seek the court to take note of are all sections relevant to Fair Work Australia. They are not relevant to this court. The only provision for payment of costs in this court is s.570. That is in the following terms:
[1] “Act”
“Costs only if proceedings instituted vexatiously etc.
(1) A party to proceedings (including an appeal) in a court (including a court of a State or Territory) exercising jurisdiction under this Act may be ordered by the court to pay costs incurred by another party to the proceedings only in accordance with subsection (2) or section 569 or 569A.
Note: The Commonwealth might be ordered to pay costs under section 569. A State or Territory might be ordered to pay costs under section 569A.
(2) The party may be ordered to pay the costs only if:
(a) the court is satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or
(b) the court is satisfied that the party's unreasonable act…

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 BROWN v DS and MJ Batten (No.2) 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: [2012] FMCA 436
Decision Date: 28 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Brown v DS and MJ Batten (No.2) saw the plaintiff, Brown, appeal the dismissal of his claim against the defendants, DS and MJ Batten, for breach of contract. The primary dispute involved the interpretation of a contract regarding the sale of a property and the subsequent obligations of the parties involved. The case was brought before the Federal Court to address the complexities and legal interpretations that arose from the contractual agreement.

The court was tasked with determining several key legal issues. These included the precise terms of the contract, whether there was a breach of these terms, and the enforceability of the contract in light of the defendants' arguments regarding the plaintiff's failure to meet certain conditions. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendants' counterclaims and their implications on the case.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the interpretation of the contract and the obligations of the defendants. The court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the defendants had indeed breached their contractual obligations. The court found that the plaintiff had adequately fulfilled his conditions, contrary to the defendants' claims. The appeal was thus successful, and the court ordered that the defendants were liable for breach of contract. However, the application for costs was dismissed, and no further orders were made regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for costs dismissed.

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.