FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cavar v Green Gate Management Services Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 471
ORDERS
NSD 102 of 2017
NSD 103 of 2017BETWEEN: CELIA CAVAR
Applicant
AND: GREEN GATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applications for Leave to Appeal are refused.
2.The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Since about 2014 there has been an ongoing dispute between Ms Celia Cavar and her employer.
That dispute has focussed upon (inter alia) allegations that her employer has acted in breach of contract and contravened the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (the “Fair Work Act”) and has discriminated against her in contravention of (inter alia) the Age Discrimination Act2004 (Cth) and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
In 2015 a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia summarily dismissed Ms Cavar’s proceedings: Cavar v St Brigid’s trading as Green Gate Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 1993. Leave to appeal from that decision was allowed (in part) and the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for re-hearing: Cavar v Green Gate Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1179. The grant of leave to appeal was confined to the claim for relief under the Fair Work Act.
The Federal Circuit Court has since re-heard…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cavar v Green Gate Management Services Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] FCA 471
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the previous decisions of the Federal Circuit Court warranted an appeal and whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal. The court was tasked with determining whether there were grounds for an appeal, considering the merits of Ms. Cavar's claims and the arguments presented. The court had to weigh the importance of the legal questions involved and the potential impact of an appeal on the proceedings.
The court found that there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal. It concluded that the previous decisions of the Federal Circuit Court were correctly made, and there was no error in law or procedure that warranted an appeal. The court emphasised that appeals should not be granted if they have no reasonable prospect of success or if they are not in the interests of justice. Given the court's previous findings and the arguments presented, it determined that the application for leave to appeal should be refused. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent.
Accordingly, the court's orders were that the applications for leave to appeal were refused, and Ms. Cavar was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. This decision upheld the previous rulings of the Federal Circuit Court and emphasised the importance of the criteria for granting leave to appeal in Australian courts.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Applications for Leave to Appeal are refused.
2. The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.