Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd - [2015] FCA 377

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 377

Citation: Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 377

Parties: ROBERT EDMOND COGHILL v INDOCHINE RESOURCES PTY LTD (ACN 119 808 007)

File number: NSD 206 of 2014

Judge: KATZMANN J

Date of judgment: 23 April 2015

Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application to join additional respondent in proceeding for breaches of contract of employment and Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) –allegation that proposed additional respondent was applicant’s employer jointly with or in the alternative to the current respondent– where no issue on the pleadings about employment – whether reasonably arguable case against proposed additional respondent – whether material facts pleaded in draft amended statement of claim

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 9.05(1)

Cases cited:
ALH Group Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue of New South Wales (2012) 245 CLR 338
Boire v Greyhound Corp., 376 US 473 (1964)
Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 All ER 287
Bupa Australia Pty Ltd v iSelect (No 2) [2012] FCA 1277
Fair Work Ombudsman v Eastern Colour Pty Ltd (2011) 209 IR 263; [2011] FCA 803
Gothard, in a matter of AFG Pty Limited (Receivers and Manages appointed) (in liq) v Davey (2010) 80 ACSR 56; [2010] FCA 1163
In the matter of C&T Grinter Transport Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) & Grinter Transport Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Controller Appointed) [2004] FCA 1148
Morgan v Kittochside Nominees Pty Ltd (2002) 117 IR 152
National Labor Relations Board v Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir 1982)
Pitcher v Langford (1991) 23 NSWLR 142
Robinson v Podosky [1905] St R (Qd) 118
Rohrlach v Christianos (1980) 26 SASR 161
Scarf v Jardine (1882) 7 App Cas 345 at 351; [1881‑5] All ER 651
Sienkiewicz (as trustee for the Sienkiewicz Superannuation Fund) v Salisbury Group Pty Limited [2013] FCA 977
Textile Footwear and Clothing Union of Australia v Bellechic Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1465
The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Orica Limited (1998) 194 CLR 500
Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd [1902] 2 KB 660
Trade Practices Commission v Westco Motors (Distributors) Pty Ltd (1981) 58 FLR 384

Bailey J, “Novation” (1999) 14 JCL 189
Chitty on Contracts (31^st ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 2012) Vol 1
Seddon N, Bigwood R, Ellinghaus MP, Cheshire and Fifoot's Law of Contract (10th Aust ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2012)

Date of hearing: 16 March 2015

Place: Sydney

Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 64

Counsel for the Applicant Mr R White

Solicitor for the Applicant: DC Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Darams

Solicitor for the Respondent: Eakin McCaffery Cox

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 206 OF 2014

BETWEEN:
ROBERT EDMOND COGHILL
Applicant

AND:
INDOCHINE RESOURCES PTY LTD…

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 Coghill v Indochine Resources 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: [2015] FCA 377
Decision Date: 23 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Coghill, sought to join an additional respondent, Indochine Resources Pty Ltd, in proceedings against the current respondent in an action for breaches of contract of employment and under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute arose from allegations that the proposed additional respondent was the applicant's employer jointly with or in the alternative to the current respondent. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was a reasonably arguable case against the proposed additional respondent and whether the material facts necessary to support the claim were adequately pleaded in the draft amended statement of claim.

The court considered the relevant legal principles concerning applications to join additional respondents and the criteria for determining whether a case is reasonably arguable. It held that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonably arguable case against the proposed additional respondent, as there was no dispute about the identity of the employer and the applicant's employment relationship. Furthermore, the court found that the draft amended statement of claim did not sufficiently plead the material facts required to support a claim against the additional respondent. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s interlocutory application filed on 8 December 2014 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 377
Parties:	ROBERT EDMOND COGHILL v INDOCHINE RESOURCES PTY LTD (ACN 119 808 007)
File number:	NSD 206 of 2014
Judge:	KATZMANN J
Date of judgment:	23 April 2015
Catchwords:	PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application to join additional respondent in proceeding for breaches of contract of employment and Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) –allegation that proposed additional respondent was applicant’s employer jointly with or in the alternative to the current respondent– where no issue on the pleadings about employment – whether reasonably arguable case against proposed additional respondent – whether material facts pleaded in draft amended statement of claim
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 9.05(1)
Cases cited:	ALH Group Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue of New South Wales (2012) 245 CLR 338 Boire v Greyhound Corp., 376 US 473 (1964) Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 All ER 287 Bupa Australia Pty Ltd v iSelect (No 2) [2012] FCA 1277 Fair Work Ombudsman v Eastern Colour Pty Ltd (2011) 209 IR 263; [2011] FCA 803 Gothard, in a matter of AFG Pty Limited (Receivers and Manages appointed) (in liq) v Davey (2010) 80 ACSR 56; [2010] FCA 1163 In the matter of C&T Grinter Transport Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) & Grinter Transport Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Controller Appointed) [2004] FCA 1148 Morgan v Kittochside Nominees Pty Ltd (2002) 117 IR 152 National Labor Relations Board v Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir 1982) Pitcher v Langford (1991) 23 NSWLR 142 Robinson v Podosky [1905] St R (Qd) 118 Rohrlach v Christianos (1980) 26 SASR 161 Scarf v Jardine (1882) 7 App Cas 345 at 351; [1881‑5] All ER 651 Sienkiewicz (as trustee for the Sienkiewicz Superannuation Fund) v Salisbury Group Pty Limited [2013] FCA 977 Textile Footwear and Clothing Union of Australia v Bellechic Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1465 The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Orica Limited (1998) 194 CLR 500 Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd [1902] 2 KB 660 Trade Practices Commission v Westco Motors (Distributors) Pty Ltd (1981) 58 FLR 384 Bailey J, “Novation” (1999) 14 JCL 189 Chitty on Contracts (31^st ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 2012) Vol 1 Seddon N, Bigwood R, Ellinghaus MP, Cheshire and Fifoot's Law of Contract (10th Aust ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2012)
Date of hearing:	16 March 2015
Place:	Sydney
Division:	FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	64
Counsel for the Applicant	Mr R White
Solicitor for the Applicant:	DC Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Darams
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Eakin McCaffery Cox

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION		NSD 206 OF 2014
BETWEEN:	ROBERT EDMOND COGHILL Applicant
AND:	INDOCHINE RESOURCES PTY LTD…