Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited - [2019] FCAFC 103

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited [2019] FCAFC 103

Appeal from: Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] FCA 1994

File number: QUD 936 of 2018

Judges: LOGAN, FLICK AND REEVES JJ

Date of judgment: 21 June 2019

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from the Federal Court – where appellant is a litigant in person – where appellant was made involuntarily redundant – where appellant claims employer took adverse action against him because he exercised a workplace right – where appellant also sought a remedy in the Court for unfair dismissal – where appellant commenced proceedings in the Federal Court rather than in the Fair Work Commission – whether Federal Court can grant relief for unfair dismissal in the Federal Court – primary judge was correct in finding it did not have jurisdiction to entertain unfair dismissal claims – where, if the employer’s witnesses were believed, the appellant’s termination had nothing to do with his exercising workplace rights – where primary judge made findings about the credibility of witnesses – whether credibility findings should be displaced by an appellate court – where appellant claimed his employer’s witnesses gave untruthful evidence – where there was no evidence supporting this claim – appeal dismissed

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 342, 361, 365, 366, 368, 369, 370, 385, 389, 390, 394, 725, 727, 728, 729

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.01

Cases cited:
Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd (2018) 358 ALR 683

Belton v General Motors-Holden’s Ltd (No 1) (1984) 58 ALJR 352

Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500

Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424

Cocoa Cola Amatil (PNG) Ltd v Kennedy (2012) 2 PNGLR 205

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Anglo Coal (Dawson Services) Pty Ltd (2015) 238 FCR 273

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472

Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] FCA 1994

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Walsh v Umoona Tjutagku Health Services Aboriginal Corporation (No 2) [2017] FCA 852

Date of hearing: 9 May 2019

Registry: Queensland

Division: Fair Work Division

National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 52

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Dwyer

Solicitor for the Respondent: McCullough Robertson

ORDERS

QUD 936 of 2018

BETWEEN:
PRIT NATH DUTTA

Appellant

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

JUDGES:

LOGAN, FLICK AND REEVES JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JUNE 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LOGAN AND REEVES JJ:

Mr Prit Nath Dutta was once employed by the respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra). Telstra terminated that employment on 18 August 2017.…

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 Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited 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: [2019] FCAFC 103
Decision Date: 21 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited, the appellant, Mr Dutta, was involuntarily made redundant by his employer, Telstra Corporation Limited. He brought proceedings in the Federal Court, claiming that the employer took adverse action against him because he exercised a workplace right and also sought a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Federal Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the unfair dismissal claims and dismissed the case. The appellant, appearing as a litigant in person, appealed to the court, arguing that the primary judge should have found the employer's witnesses' evidence to be untruthful.

The court considered whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to grant relief for unfair dismissal and whether the primary judge's findings on the credibility of witnesses should be displaced. The court held that the primary judge was correct in finding that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the unfair dismissal claims. The court found that the primary judge's credibility findings should not be displaced in the absence of evidence to support the appellant's claim that the employer's witnesses gave untruthful evidence. The court concluded that, if the employer's witnesses were believed, the appellant's termination had nothing to do with him exercising his workplace rights.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. This case highlights the importance of understanding jurisdictional limits when bringing proceedings and the weight given to findings of fact by primary judges.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Appeal from:	Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] FCA 1994
File number:	QUD 936 of 2018
Judges:	LOGAN, FLICK AND REEVES JJ
Date of judgment:	21 June 2019
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from the Federal Court – where appellant is a litigant in person – where appellant was made involuntarily redundant – where appellant claims employer took adverse action against him because he exercised a workplace right – where appellant also sought a remedy in the Court for unfair dismissal – where appellant commenced proceedings in the Federal Court rather than in the Fair Work Commission – whether Federal Court can grant relief for unfair dismissal in the Federal Court – primary judge was correct in finding it did not have jurisdiction to entertain unfair dismissal claims – where, if the employer’s witnesses were believed, the appellant’s termination had nothing to do with his exercising workplace rights – where primary judge made findings about the credibility of witnesses – whether credibility findings should be displaced by an appellate court – where appellant claimed his employer’s witnesses gave untruthful evidence – where there was no evidence supporting this claim – appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 342, 361, 365, 366, 368, 369, 370, 385, 389, 390, 394, 725, 727, 728, 729 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.01
Cases cited:	Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd (2018) 358 ALR 683 Belton v General Motors-Holden’s Ltd (No 1) (1984) 58 ALJR 352 Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 Cocoa Cola Amatil (PNG) Ltd v Kennedy (2012) 2 PNGLR 205 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Anglo Coal (Dawson Services) Pty Ltd (2015) 238 FCR 273 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Dutta v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] FCA 1994 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Walsh v Umoona Tjutagku Health Services Aboriginal Corporation (No 2) [2017] FCA 852
Date of hearing:	9 May 2019
Registry:	Queensland
Division:	Fair Work Division
National Practice Area:	Employment & Industrial Relations
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	52
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Dwyer
Solicitor for the Respondent:	McCullough Robertson

JUDGES:	LOGAN, FLICK AND REEVES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 JUNE 2019