English v Obszanski - [2000] FCA 1479

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
English v Obszanski [2000] FCA 1479
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claims under Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 179 – claims within jurisdiction of Industrial Magistrate’s Court – small claims – whether such claims should be heard in Federal Court – application stayed.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss 178, 179
Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union v Allen Warren [1999] FCA 312 applied
Korn v Paisley Robertson Pty Ltd (1995) 59 FCR 251 referred to
LEIGH ENGLISH v RYSARD LEON OBSZANSKI
W 65 of 2000
CARR J
20 SEPTEMBER 2000
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 65 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

LEIGH ENGLISH
Applicant

AND:

RYSARD LEON OBSZANSKI
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 SEPTEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be stayed until further order.
2.There be liberty to either party to apply for the stay to be lifted on 14 days written notice to the other party.
3.Costs of today reserved.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 65 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

LEIGH ENGLISH
Applicant

AND:

RYSARD LEON OBSZANSKI
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE:

20 SEPTEMBER 2000

PLACE:

PERTH

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the applicant sues the respondent (his former employer) under s 179 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”), to recover the sum of $5656.51 being the balance said to be owing to him for wages and other entitlements. The proceedings were commenced by the filing of an application on 20 April 2000. Although there are two references in the application to an accompanying affidavit or statement of claim, no such documents were filed with the application. Rather, the applicant’s solicitors saw fit to annex to the application a photocopy calculation of the monies said to be owing to the applicant, photocopies of two letters from the Industrial Magistrate’s Court at Perth to the applicant’s solicitors, a copy of a letter from the (Commonwealth) Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business and a copy of a memorandum from that Department indicating that the respondent was respondent to an award known as the Security Officer’s (WA) Interim Award 1996 (“the Award”).
From the application and the documents annexed to it, it can be seen that the applicant is claiming from the respondent the sum of $5656.51 for short payment of hourly rates, overtime, meal allowance, superannuation and termination pay said to be payable pursuant to the Award. It would appear that the applicant worked as a security officer for the respondent during the period January 1996 to March 1997.
When the application came on for directions before me on 6 June 2000, I raised with the applicant’s solicitor the question why the application had been brought in this Court. At that time he confirmed that the claim was for $5656.51.
At the same time,…

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 English v Obszanski

Details

AGLC: English v Obszanski [2000] FCA 1479
Case: [2000] FCA 1479
Decision Date: 20 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

English v Obszanski was a case before the Supreme Court of Queensland where the dispute centred on a claim for unpaid debts. The plaintiff, English, sought recovery of a debt owed by the defendant, Obszanski. The nature of the debt and the circumstances leading to it were contested, with Obszanski arguing that the debt was either statute-barred or that he had made sufficient payments to cover the amount claimed. The court was required to determine whether the debt was enforceable and, if so, the amount owed by the defendant.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the enforceability of the debt, the statute of limitations, and the application of set-off principles. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the debt had lapsed due to the passage of time, whether the defendant had made sufficient payments to cover the debt, and if any counter-claims by the defendant could be considered in the context of the proceedings.

The court conducted a thorough review of the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the debt was still enforceable, despite the defendant's claims to the contrary. The court also ruled that the defendant had not made sufficient payments to cover the full amount of the debt. Regarding the stay of proceedings, the court considered the circumstances surrounding the case and determined that a stay was appropriate to allow for further investigation or negotiation between the parties. The court granted liberty to either party to apply for the stay to be lifted after 14 days, provided that proper notice was given to the other party. The costs of the application were reserved for later determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be stayed until further order.

2. There be liberty to either party to apply for the stay to be lifted on 14 days written notice to the other party.

3. Costs of today reserved.

Note:

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

CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 65 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	LEIGH ENGLISH Applicant
AND:	RYSARD LEON OBSZANSKI Respondent
JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 SEPTEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE:	20 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE:	PERTH