Gauba v Unique Security Services Pty Ltd T/As Unique Security Group

[2015] FCCA 3445

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GAUBA v UNIQUE SECURITY SERVICES PTY LTD T/AS UNIQUE SECURITY GROUP [2015] FCCA 3445

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application listed pursuant to r.13.12(1) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001 (Cth) – no appearance by parties – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.12

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Applicant: BHARAT (BARRY) BHUSHAN GAUBA

Respondent: UNIQUE SECURITY SERVICES PTY LTD T/AS UNIQUE SECURITY GROUP

File Number: SYG 2791 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 9 December 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Respondent: No Appearance

ORDERS

1. The application made on 11 November 2013 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.12(1) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2791 of 2013

BHARAT (BARRY) BHUSHAN GAUBA

Applicant

And

UNIQUE SECURITY SERVICES PTY LTD T/AS UNIQUE SECURITY GROUP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made by Mr Bharat Gauba (“the applicant”) on 11 November 2013 pursuant to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) seeking certain relief pursuant to that Act against Unique Security Services Proprietary Limited (“the respondent”).

2. This case has had a long procedural history before the Court.  On 27 November 2013, the applicant appeared in person before the Court and was assisted by an interpreter in the Hindi language.  There was no appearance by the respondent.  The matter was adjourned to enable the applicant to properly file and serve documents on the respondent, and an order was made that an affidavit of service be filed in these proceedings by 17 December 2013. 

3. The matter was listed for further directions on 18 December 2013.  On that date the applicant again appeared in person and, again, there was no appearance by, or for, the respondent.  The matter was set down for further directions on 19 February 2014.  On that date the applicant again appeared in person.  There was no appearance by, or for, the respondent.  Nonetheless, as the Court was satisfied as to service, the matter was set down for hearing on 14 August 2014.  On that date the applicant appeared in person and was assisted by an interpreter in the Hindi language.  There was no appearance by the respondent. 

4. The hearing was adjourned on that date to allow the applicant to obtain further legal advice, as the applicant had told the Court that he understood the respondent to be in liquidation.  Nothing further has been filed by the applicant or, for that matter, anyone on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings. Nor has there been any further communication received by the Court or the Court’s Registry from the applicant.

5. On 12 November 2015 a letter was sent to the applicant advising that the matter was set down for further directions.  When the matter was called today at the relevant time, there was no appearance by, or for, the applicant. 

6. Pursuant to r.13.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the FCC Rules”), it is open to the Court, on its own initiative, to consider whether the proceedings should be dismissed, if a party has not taken a step in the proceedings for six months.

7. The applicant has not appeared today. I am satisfied that he had reasonable notice of the Court event, pursuant to r.13.12(4) of the FCC Rules. He has not put anything to the Court that satisfies the Court that the proceedings should not be dismissed. Neither party has taken any step in the proceedings for six months.

8. In the absence of anything to argue to the contrary, it is appropriate that the application made to the Court be dismissed pursuant to r.13.12 of the FCC Rules. I will make that order.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Associate: 

Date: 23 December 2015