Fothergill v Canberra Workwear Pty Ltd ACN 614 504 504 (Civil Dispute)

In the case of Fothergill v Canberra Workwear Pty Ltd ACN 614 504 504, Mr. Fothergill sought to have previous orders set aside that dismissed his civil dispute application in his absence. The dispute arose when Mr. Fothergill had commissioned logo embroidery services from the respondent, which failed to meet the delivery date due to various unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Fothergill claimed expenses for lost time, fuel, and other incidentals, but did not provide evidence to support these claims. The tribunal dismissed his application for interim or other orders, and Mr. Fothergill sought to have this decision set aside.

The tribunal needed to decide whether Mr. Fothergill's absence from the preliminary conference was a valid reason to set aside the orders, and whether his presence would have made a material difference to the outcome. The tribunal considered the framework set out in section 56 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 and rule 70 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures Rules 2020. The tribunal also took into account Mr. Fothergill's submissions and the medical certificate he provided later.

The tribunal found that Mr. Fothergill's absence was not a valid reason to set aside the orders, as he had not provided any evidence to support his claims for expenses. The tribunal also found that Mr. Fothergill's presence would not have made a material difference to the outcome, as the respondent had already reimbursed him for his actual loss by repaying his upfront fee. The tribunal noted that it is a no-costs jurisdiction, and Mr. Fothergill's claims for additional expenses were outside the nature of claims usually ordered by the tribunal.

The tribunal dismissed Mr. Fothergill's application for interim orders, and the final orders made on 8 October 2021 remain in effect. The tribunal ordered that Mr. Fothergill's application for interim or other orders filed on 11 October 2021 is not granted, and the application is dismissed. The tribunal noted that the effect of this is that the previous orders made on 8 October 2021 remain in effect and the application is dismissed.