Ghimire v Karriview Management Pty Ltd and Sharma v Karriview Management Pty Ltd

The applicants, Mr. Ghimire and Mr. Sharma, brought proceedings against Karriview Management Pty Ltd and Mr. Sharma (in his capacity as director of Karriview Management Pty Ltd) in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute concerned claims for unpaid entitlements, benefits, and expenses arising from their employment. A significant aspect of the proceedings involved the applicants' status as non-citizens and the validity of their employment contracts, as well as the potential for pecuniary penalty orders. The court was also asked to consider whether the applicants were estopped from bringing these claims due to an earlier order made by the Industrial Magistrates Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had the legal capacity to enter into employment contracts given their status as non-citizens and the statutory prohibitions on the employment of non-citizens. The court was required to determine the validity of the employment contracts under these circumstances. Furthermore, the court had to consider the application of estoppel, specifically cause of action, *Anshun*, and issue estoppel, arising from the prior Industrial Magistrates Court decision. The court also had to determine whether it possessed accrued or associated jurisdiction to hear these matters, and whether the applicants' actions could constitute offences due to their work performed without the right to work, raising potential evidentiary issues for criminal and civil penalty liability.

Lucev J considered the principles of estoppel, noting that for cause of action estoppel to apply, the same parties must have litigated the same cause of action in earlier proceedings. The court found that the Industrial Magistrates Court had made an order that the applicants were not entitled to the relief they sought, and that this order was final and binding. Consequently, the applicants were estopped from relitigating the same cause of action. The court also addressed the validity of the employment contracts, concluding that if the applicants did not have the legal right to work in Australia, then the contracts were void *ab initio* and unenforceable. The court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the applicants.