Legal Research
Cases
Gration v Remote King & Anor

Gration v Remote King & Anor

Case [2015] FCCA 2617 25 September 2015

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRATION v REMOTE KING & ANOR

[2015] FCCA 2617

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for summary dismissal – whether applicant’s principal application is statute barred by reason of s.723 of the Fair Work Act 2009 – whether applicant’s application to amend her unlawful termination court application to a general protections court application is within jurisdiction – finding that court has no jurisdiction to deal with applicant’s application – application for costs pursuant to s.570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 dismissed.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009, ss.723, 570, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 351, 368, 370, 365, 570(2)(b), 725, 370(a)(ii), 778(a)(ii), 773, 777, 371, 369

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28

Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 761
Maher v Mulgowie Fresh Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 439
Newman v East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Limited Trading as My Chemist Pharmacy[2011] FCA 1262
Pitrau v Barrick Mining Services Pty Ltd [2012] FMCA 186
Adam v Apple Pty Ltd [2112] FMCA 881
Sibert v Tiwi Islands Shire Council [2012] FMCA 1099
Reeve v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 499
Beggs v Login Systems Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 526
Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd [2011] FCA 395
Ryan v Primesafe [2015] FCA 8
Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale [2009] FMCA 1022

Applicant:

JASMINA GRATION

First Respondent:

REMOTE KING

Second Respondent:

LUCAS ANTHANASOPOULOS

File Number:

MLG 842 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Jones

Hearing date:

21 September 2015

Date of Last Submission:

21 September 2015

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

25 September 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Jones

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Porto Grace & Drew Lawyers

ORDERS

Pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001, the proceeding be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, for want of jurisdiction.
The Orders of Registrar Caporale made on 21 May 2015 be set aside.
The Application in a Case filed on 21 September 2015 as to the issue of costs be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 842 of 2015

JASMINA GRATION

Applicant

And

REMOTE KING

First Respondent

LUCAS ANTHANASOPOULOS

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This decision concerns an Application in a Case, filed on 29 June 2015, by the Respondent to principal proceedings instituted on 21 April 2015. The Application in a Case seeks the summary dismissal of the principal proceedings, pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”) on the basis that the Applicant’s proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success. The Orders sought are as follows:
a)Pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court (sic), the proceeding be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, pursuant to section 723, Fair Work Act 2009.
b)A declaration that the consent orders of Registrar Caporale, dated 21 May, 2015 are a nullity.
c)Alternatively, the consent orders of Registrar Caporale, dated 21…

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 Gration v Remote King & Anor

Details

AGLC: Gration v Remote King & Anor [2015] FCCA 2617
Case: [2015] FCCA 2617
Decision Date: 25 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Gration v Remote King & Anor*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Gration, and the defendants, Remote King and another party. The nature of the dispute involved allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the defendants had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)), and whether the plaintiff had suffered loss or damage as a result of such conduct.

Judge Jones found that the defendants' conduct did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning misleading and deceptive conduct, focusing on whether the conduct, viewed as a whole, was capable of leading a person into error. The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff had been misled or deceived by the defendants' actions.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed.

Orders