Gomma v WSP Australia Pty Ltd

In *Gomma v WSP Australia Pty Ltd*, Jarrett J of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application to summarily dismiss proceedings. The applicant had commenced a General Protections Application in the Fair Work Commission alleging adverse action by the respondent. The respondent sought to rely on evidence of a settlement agreement reached during a conciliation conference to argue that the applicant's current proceedings should be dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached between the parties during the Fair Work Commission conciliation conference. This involved determining whether the applicant's solicitor had the authority to accept the respondent's settlement offer on the applicant's behalf, and whether the evidence of the settlement discussions was admissible. The court also considered the effect of a valid settlement agreement on the pre-existing cause of action.

Jarrett J reasoned that a settlement agreement, if validly concluded, would extinguish the applicant's pre-existing cause of action, rendering the current proceedings frivolous or vexatious. The court found that the respondent's objections to adducing evidence of settlement discussions were unfounded, as the *Fair Work Act* did not prohibit evidence of an agreement reached, and the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) provided an exception to the rule against admitting evidence of settlement negotiations where the making of such an agreement was in issue. Crucially, the court held that the applicant's solicitor possessed ostensible authority to compromise the claim on behalf of the applicant, a principle well-established in Australian law. Despite the applicant's later assertion that his solicitor lacked actual authority, the court found that the solicitor's ostensible authority was sufficient to bind the applicant to the compromise, as there was no evidence that the applicant had restricted his solicitor's authority prior to the acceptance of the offer.

The court concluded that a binding settlement agreement had been reached. Consequently, the proceedings were summarily dismissed on the basis that the applicant's cause of action had been extinguished by the settlement.