Carroll v Clays Financial Services Pty Limited

[2013] FCCA 1375

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARROLL v CLAYS FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED [2013] FCCA 1375

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – No appearance.

Legislation:  

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Applicant: JOHN LAURENCE CARROLL

Respondent: CLAYS FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED

File Number: SYG 697 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Raphael

Hearing date: 10 September 2013

Date of Last Submission: 10 September 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 10 September 2013

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Kells

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. No order as to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 697 of 2013

JOHN LAURENCE CARROLL

Applicant

And

CLAYS FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the applicant commenced proceeding under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)[1].  At the time, he was represented by a firm of solicitors experienced in these matters.  The matter came before me for a first court date on 3 June 2013 when the applicant’s solicitor appeared and mentioned the matter on behalf of the respondent.  By consent certain orders were made, including a requirement that the applicant file and serve points of claim setting out allegations of breaches of the Act and any allegations in the ancillary or associated jurisdiction by 24 June 2013.  The matter was then to proceed after the filing of a defence and mediation.

   [1] The Act.

2. The applicant did not file and serve points of claim, and when this failure was raised with his solicitors by letter from the respondent solicitors on 15 July 2013, no response was received.  When it was raised again, by letter of 30 July 2013, the respondent’s solicitor’s action was to file on 2 August 2013 a Notice of Withdrawal of Lawyer.  The respondent’s solicitors then communicated with the applicant and sought from the court a further mention, under the liberty to apply provisions in my original orders, and informed the applicant that if he did not appear today they would seek that the proceedings be dismissed.  The court wrote to the applicant at his address for service and informed him of the hearing.  The applicant was not present in court at 9.30am and was not present at 9.40am when the matter came on for hearing.  

3. In those circumstances, I propose to dismiss the proceedings to Part 13, Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). This being a Fair Work matter, there will be no order for costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael

Associate: 

Date:  17 September 2013