Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd - [2024] FCA 993

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 993

File number: WAD 182 of 2023

Judgment of: JACKSON J

Date of judgment: 30 August 2024

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for joinder of additional respondent - claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - proposed amended claim internally incoherent - application dismissed

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 9.05

Division: Fair Work Division

Registry: Western Australia

National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs: 29

Date of hearing: 30 July 2024

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S Heathcote

Solicitor for the Respondents: APX Law

ORDERS

WAD 182 of 2023

BETWEEN:
PETER JOHN CHAMBERS

Applicant

AND:
BROADWAY HOMES PTY LTD

First Respondent

MARK BASSO-BRUSA

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 AUGUST 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave to the applicant to amend in terms of the further minute of amended originating application and further minute of amended concise statement each filed on 8 August 2024 is refused.
2.The interlocutory application filed on 21 May 2024 is otherwise dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JACKSON J:

The applicant, Peter Chambers, has made an interlocutory application under r 9.05(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to join a company called Delstrat Pty Ltd as a third respondent to the proceeding. The present respondents, Broadway Homes Pty Ltd and one of its directors, Mark Basso-Brusa, oppose the interlocutory application. For the following reasons, the application will be dismissed.
The present claim
As presently constituted, the proceeding is a claim by Mr Chambers under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He alleges that Broadway Homes employed him as a General Manager following the settlement of an earlier claim he had made under that Act. Mr Chambers alleges that in accordance with the settlement agreement, he commenced employment with Broadway Homes (it would appear, for the second time) in January 2023.
Mr Chambers' present claim is that Broadway Homes regularly underpaid him, and that after he complained about that, and commenced proceedings in the Fair Work Commission, he was dismissed from his employment with Broadway Homes. The dismissal is said to have occurred on 20 June 2023. Mr Chambers alleges that he was dismissed because he sought to exercise various workplace rights. He claims compensation and other damages and penalties from Broadway Homes. He alleges that Mr Basso-Brusa was involved in the contraventions by Broadway Homes because, among other things, he instructed others to effect Mr Chambers' dismissal.
The claim is listed for trial for three days commencing on 3 December 2024.
The proposed claim against Delstrat Pty Ltd
Mr Chambers does not have legal representation. The claim that he wishes to pursue against Delstrat Pty Ltd has been articulated in various ways in different documents he has filed in support of the application for joinder. These…

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 Chambers v Broadway Homes 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

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: [2024] FCA 993
Decision Date: 30 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd involved an application by the plaintiff, Mr Chambers, to join Delstrat Pty Ltd as an additional respondent to his proceedings. The dispute was under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and related to Mr Chambers' employment terms and conditions. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether to permit Mr Chambers to join Delstrat Pty Ltd as a respondent and amend his claim to include allegations against this new party. The issues included whether the proposed amended claim was coherent and whether there was a valid contractual term that would hold Delstrat Pty Ltd liable for any failure by Broadway Homes to employ Mr Chambers for a minimum term. The court found that the amended claim was internally incoherent and that there was no pleaded term making Delstrat Pty Ltd liable in contract for Broadway Homes' actions.

The court reasoned that despite Mr Chambers' lack of legal representation and the need to avoid defeating his claim on pedantic technicalities, the fundamental flaws in the claim were significant. The court noted that Mr Chambers had multiple opportunities to articulate a coherent claim against Delstrat Pty Ltd but had not done so. The court concluded that it could not have confidence that another opportunity would yield a better result, especially given the proximity of the trial dates. The court exercised its discretion to proceed to trial against the existing respondents based on the current application and pleadings, dismissing the application to join Delstrat Pty Ltd and the related application to amend.

The orders made by the court were to refuse leave to amend the claim and to dismiss the interlocutory application. The court's decision was based on the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions, aiming to ensure that the case could progress efficiently and fairly.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to the applicant to amend in terms of the further minute of amended originating application and further minute of amended concise statement each filed on 8 August 2024 is refused.

2. The interlocutory application filed on 21 May 2024 is otherwise dismissed.

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

An additional significant flaw in the claim is that if it is still alleged that Broadway Homes was the relevant employer, no term is pleaded making Delstrat Pty Ltd liable in contract (not as an employer) for any alleged failure by Broadway Homes to employ Mr Chambers for a minimum term of four years. What is alleged is a term that Delstrat Pty Ltd would employ him for four years 'within one of its associated businesses', which is to say that Delstrat Pty Ltd would itself be the employer.Conclusion I am conscious that Mr Chambers does not have legal representation. No narrow or pedantic pleading points should be permitted to defeat his claim. But the problems articulated above are fundamental. As described above, Mr Chambers has had several opportunities to articulate a coherent claim against Delstrat Pty Ltd. With respect, he has not managed to do so, despite his apparent acceptance and understanding at the joinder hearing of what was required. The Court can have no confidence that another opportunity will produce any better result. The trial dates are now a month closer than they were at time of that hearing. A line needs to be drawn under the issue of joinder. A proper exercise of discretion as case managing judge, taking into account the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions, is to proceed to trial against the present respondents on the basis of the current application and pleadings. The application to join Delstrat Pty Ltd as a party to the proceeding, and Mr Chambers' related application to amend, will be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	WAD 182 of 2023
Judgment of:	JACKSON J
Date of judgment:	30 August 2024
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for joinder of additional respondent - claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - proposed amended claim internally incoherent - application dismissed
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 9.05
Division:	Fair Work Division
Registry:	Western Australia
National Practice Area:	Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs:	29
Date of hearing:	30 July 2024
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr S Heathcote
Solicitor for the Respondents:	APX Law

ORDER MADE BY:	JACKSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 AUGUST 2024