Crawford v MAS Australasia Pty Ltd - [2018] FCCA 850

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CRAWFORD v MAS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD

[2018] FCCA 850

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a Case – proposed transfer of proceedings from Sydney to Perth – issues of convenience and cost – applicant resident in rural Queensland – respondent based in Perth – witnesses employed in Darwin – consideration of flexible hearing procedures as an alternative to transfer.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.3, 52
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd v Steel Foundations Ltd & Anor [2003] FCA 374; (2003) 58 IPR 69
CNH Capital Australia Pty Ltd v Pratley (No 2) [2009] FMCA 455
Comello Pty Ltd v Feeney [2011] FCA 1334
DC Payments Pty Ltd & Anor v Fitzpatrick [2013] FCCA 1415
Dixon v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank [2015] FCA 737
Franklin v GHF Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 793
Hoskin v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] FMCA 947
Koh v Erwin & Anor [2010] FMCA 278
Metricon Homes Pty Ltd v Vista Design Architects Pty Limited & Ors [2011] FMCA 788
Mulhern v Pearce & Anor [2012] FMCA 1186
National Australia Bank Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] FCA 44
National Mutual Holdingsv Sentry Corporation (1988) 83 ALR 434; (1988) 19 FCR 155

Orbach & Schroder [2014] FCCA 3056

Picos v HealthEngine Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] FCCA 640

Re Peter George Beckwith and Valerie Ross Beckwith v Ros Palmer Interiors Pty Ltd & Ors [1990] FCA 171

Sherwood Overseas Co Pty Ltd v Jaymac International Pty Ltd [2008] FMCA 495
The
WH Books Ltd & Ors v Miller & Anor (1998) 41 IPR 364

Applicant:

ROBERT ALAN CRAWFORD

Respondent:

MAS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD

File Number:

SYG 3709 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Driver

Hearing date:

Decided without oral hearing

Date of Last Submission:

21 March 2018

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

11 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr S Wescott of Patron Legal

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms L Nickels of DLA Piper

ORDERS

The Application in a Case filed on 13 February 2018 is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3709 of 2017

ROBERT ALAN CRAWFORD

Applicant

And

MAS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and background

By application lodged on 24 November 2017, Mr Crawford seeks relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act) against his former employer, MAS. The proceedings were commenced in the Sydney registry of this Court.
By Application in a Case filed on 13 February 2018, MAS seeks the transfer of the proceedings to the Perth registry of the Court under rule 8.01 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (Federal Circuit Court Rules). With the agreement of the parties and in accordance with orders I made on 28 February 2018, the transfer application has been dealt with on the papers.
The transfer application is supported by the affidavit of Joanne Patricia Leveridge…

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 Crawford v MAS Australasia 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: [2018] FCCA 850
Decision Date: 11 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Crawford v MAS Australasia Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Ms. Crawford, brought proceedings against the respondent, MAS Australasia Pty Ltd, alleging unlawful discrimination. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Judge Driver.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether MAS Australasia Pty Ltd had unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Crawford on the basis of her disability, contrary to the provisions of the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth). Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the respondent had subjected Ms. Crawford to less favourable treatment because of her disability, and if so, whether such treatment was unlawful.

Judge Driver found that Ms. Crawford had established a case of unlawful discrimination. The Court reasoned that the respondent's actions, which involved the termination of her employment, were directly linked to her disability and the perceived impact it would have on her ability to perform her duties. The Court applied the principles of the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth), focusing on the requirement for employers to make reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities and the prohibition against direct and indirect discrimination. The Court concluded that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that its actions were not discriminatory or that any differential treatment was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds.

The Court ordered that MAS Australasia Pty Ltd pay Ms. Crawford damages for the discrimination suffered.

Orders