FIELD DEPLOYMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD -v- JONES [2015] WASC 136

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 136
Published:	20/04/2015
Case No:	CIV:1401/2015	Heard:	15 APRIL 2015
Coram:	MITCHELL J	Delivered:	15/04/15
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	FIELD DEPLOYMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD MARK WILLIAM JONES DULAL GHOSH SC PROJECTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD SEA TRUCKS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD THE INSTITUTE OF ARBITRATORS AND MEDIATORS AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Judicial review Where relief sought would be rendered futile by operation of statute Where alternative remedy available
Legislation:	Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 28, s 31(3), s 46
Case References:	Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212 BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 394 Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v SC Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 60 Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501 Re Minister for Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Woodley [No 2] [2009] WASC 296 SZBYR v Minister for Immigration [2007] HCA 26; (2007) 235 ALR 609

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : FIELD DEPLOYMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD -v- JONES [2015] WASC 136 CORAM : MITCHELL J HEARD : 15 APRIL 2015 DELIVERED : 15 APRIL 2015 PUBLISHED : 20 APRIL 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1401 of 2015 BETWEEN : FIELD DEPLOYMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

MARK WILLIAM JONES

First Respondent

DULAL GHOSH

Second Respondent

SC PROJECTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

First Other Party

SEA TRUCKS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Second Other Party

THE INSTITUTE OF ARBITRATORS AND MEDIATORS AUSTRALIA

Third Other Party

Catchwords:

Judicial review - Where relief sought would be rendered futile by operation of statute - Where alternative remedy available

Legislation:

Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 28, s 31(3), s 46

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr P G Clifford & Mr A P Rumsley

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : No appearance

First Other Party : Mr T J Porter

Second Other Party : Mr T J Porter

Third Other Party : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : Alan Rumsley

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : No appearance

First Other Party : Jones Day

Second Other Party : Jones Day

Third Other Party : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212
BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 394
Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v SC Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 60
Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501
Re Minister for Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Woodley [No 2] [2009] WASC 296
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration [2007] HCA 26; (2007) 235 ALR 609

MITCHELL J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the court's record of the decision.)

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 Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v Jones

Details

AGLC: Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v Jones [2015] WASC 136
Case: [2015] WASC 136
Decision Date: 20 APRIL 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court heard an application for judicial review by Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd against Jones, a former employee. The dispute centred around the legality of the decision made by the respondent in his capacity as a member of the Migration Review Tribunal. Field Deployment Solutions sought to challenge the tribunal’s decision on the basis that it was made without proper regard to the relevant statutory provisions. The Court was required to determine whether the application for judicial review should proceed and if there were any alternative remedies available that could address the applicant's concerns.

The legal issues before the Court involved the applicability of judicial review in circumstances where the relief sought would become futile due to the operation of another statute. The Court had to consider whether there were alternative remedies available to the applicant that could provide an effective resolution to the dispute without necessitating a judicial review. The Court noted that if an alternative remedy existed, it would be inappropriate to proceed with the application for judicial review, as doing so would render the relief sought by the applicant futile.

In its reasoning, the Court found that there was indeed an alternative remedy available to the applicant. This alternative provided a means for the applicant to address its concerns effectively without the need for judicial review. Given that the relief sought in the application for judicial review would be rendered futile by the operation of another statute, the Court dismissed the application. The Court concluded that it was not appropriate to proceed with the judicial review when an effective alternative remedy was available.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and made no further orders, as the alternative remedy was deemed sufficient to address the applicant's concerns.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.