Legal Research
Cases
Crawford v Steadmark Pty Ltd (No.2)

Crawford v Steadmark Pty Ltd (No.2)

Case [2015] FCCA 2697 8 October 2015

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CRAWFORD v STEADMARK PTY LTD (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 2697

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Adverse action – whether employment terminated for a prohibited reason – whether refusal to employ for a prohibited reason – presumption under s.361 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether failure to provide notice under s.117 – whether failure to provide Fair Work Information Statement – whether failure to provide bonus.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.117, 125, 341, 342, 346, 360, 361, 540, 546

Crawford v Steadmark Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 2916

Cooper v Darwin Rugby League Inc (1994) 57 IR 238
Andersen v Umbakumba Community Council (1994) 126 ALR 121
D’Lima v Board of Management, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children (1995-6) 64 IR 19

Fisher v Edith Cowan University (1996) 70 IR 206
Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416
Shea v TRUenergy Pty Ltd (No.6) [2014] FCA 271
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technology and Further Education v Barclay & Anor [2012] HCA 32

General Motors Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 136 CLR 676
Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd (No.2) [2010] FCA 399
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd (1999) 140 IR 131
Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] FCA 1585
Maritime Union of Australia v CSL Australia Pty Limited [2002] FCA 513; 113 IR 326
BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FCAFC 138
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 25
Short v Ambulance Victoria [2015] FCAFC 55
Ermel v Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCA 17
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 76
Klein v Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Services Board (2012) 208 FCR RailPro Services Pty Ltd v Flavel [2015] FCA 504
State of Victoria (Office of Public Prosecutions) v Grant [2014] FCAFC 184
Email v Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCA 17
Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd v Lindley [2010] NSWCA 357
Dafallah v Fair Work Commission [2014] FCA 328
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Service Assistance Pty Ltd(2011) 193 FCR 526; [2011] FCA 333
Kennewell v MG & CG Atkins trading as Cardinia Waste & Recyclers [2015] FCA 716
Sayed v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2015] FCA 27
Attwood v Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre [2010] FMCA 342
Borg v Victoria University [2015] FCA 252

Maritime Union of Australia v Fair Work Ombudsman [2015] FCAFC 120

Applicant:

MONIQUE CRAWFORD

Respondent:

STEADMARK PTY LTD
(ACN 007 320 461)

File Number:

MLG 1534 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge O'Sullivan

Hearing dates:

11, 12, & 13 May 2015 and

16 & 17 June 2015

Date of Last Submission:

19 August 2015

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

8 October 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms O’Brien QC and Mr Minnuci

Solicitors for the Applicant:

JobWatch Inc

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Follett

Solicitors for…

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.

Continue reading Crawford v Steadmark Pty Ltd (No.2)

Details

AGLC: Crawford v Steadmark Pty Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2697
Case: [2015] FCCA 2697
Decision Date: 8 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Crawford v Steadmark Pty Ltd (No.2)*, O'Sullivan J of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an application for an order that a caveat lodged by the plaintiff, Mr. Crawford, against land owned by the defendant, Steadmark Pty Ltd, be removed. The dispute arose from an alleged agreement for the sale of the land, which the defendant denied. The plaintiff sought to maintain the caveat to protect his claimed interest in the land pending the determination of his substantive claim for specific performance of the alleged sale agreement.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had established a sufficient caveatable interest in the land to justify the continued existence of the caveat. This required the court to assess the strength of the plaintiff's evidence regarding the existence of a binding agreement for the sale of the land, and whether such an agreement, if proven, would confer an equitable interest capable of supporting a caveat. The court also had to consider the principles governing the removal of caveats, particularly where the caveator's claim is disputed.

O'Sullivan J applied the established principles for determining whether a caveatable interest exists. His Honour noted that a caveator must demonstrate a *prima facie* case that they have an equitable interest in the land. This involves showing that there is a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of the alleged agreement and that the balance of convenience favours the maintenance of the caveat. In this instance, the court found that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to establish a *prima facie* case of a binding agreement for sale, noting significant deficiencies in the documentation and the defendant's denial of any concluded contract. The court considered the potential prejudice to the defendant if the caveat remained, particularly in relation to its ability to deal with its property.

Consequently, O'Sullivan J ordered the removal of the caveat lodged by the plaintiff.

Orders