Gupta v Menulog Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FCA 1247

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gupta v Menulog Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1247

File number(s): SAD 54 of 2022
Judgment of: O'SULLIVAN J
Date of judgment: 27 October 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applicants’ application for a suppression order and for the first applicant to be excused from attending future hearings in person – where no grounds exist to make a suppression order – where grounds not sufficient to excuse first applicant from attending in person – respondent’s application for summary dismissal or alternatively strike out of the statement of claim in whole or in part pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rr 26.01 and 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where claims pleaded in relation to the second applicant have no reasonable prospect of success and are summarily dismissed – where claims pleaded in relation to the first applicant fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action – where claims pleaded in relation to the first applicant are struck out – leave granted to first applicant to re-plead the statement of claim
Legislation:

Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), ss 5, 6, 7, 8, 42

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1967 (Cth), ss 31A, 37AG, 37M, 37N

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 26.01

Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth), ss 8, 9

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)

Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA)

Road Transport and Distribution Award 2020

Cases cited:

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552

Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & NZ Banking Group Ltd [1994] FCA 636; (1994) 217 ALR 226

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pauls Ltd [2000] ATPR 40,641

Banque Commercial SA (En Liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd [1990] HCA 11; (1990) 169 CLR 279

Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1979] FCA 80; (1979) 40 FLR 364

Chen v Monash University [2016] FCAFC 66

Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62

Eagle v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCA 1016; (2014) 226 FCR 44

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125

Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authorityand Ors [2012] FCAFC 97

Radisich v McDonald [2010] FCA 762; (2010) 198 IR 244

Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118

Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1081
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: South Australia
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 56
Date of hearing: 29 June 2022
Counsel for the Applicants: The Applicants appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms R Davern
Solicitor for the Respondent: Kingston Reid

ORDERS

SAD 54 of 2022
BETWEEN:

TANAY GUPTA

First Applicant

SANTOSH GUPTA

Second Applicant
AND:

MENULOG PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

O'SULLIVAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 OCTOBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS…

Continue reading Gupta v Menulog Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gupta v Menulog Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1247
Case
[2022] FCA 1247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gupta v Menulog Pty Ltd involved two applicants, Tanay and Santosh, who sought various relief against the respondent, Menulog Pty Ltd, in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought a suppression order and an exemption from attending future hearings in person, but the court found no grounds to support these requests. Additionally, the respondent applied for summary dismissal or, in the alternative, a strike out of parts of the statement of claim under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the Federal Court Rules 2011. The applicants' claims were assessed for their prospects of success and whether they disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court needed to determine whether the applicants' claims had any reasonable prospect of success and if they disclosed a reasonable cause of action. Specifically, the court had to examine the claims brought by Santosh and the balance of the claims brought by Tanay. The court concluded that Santosh's claims lacked a reasonable prospect of success and were dismissed summarily. Regarding Tanay's claims, the court found that they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, leading to the striking out of the statement of claim. However, the court did not find the defects in Tanay's claims to be incurable and granted him leave to re-plead the statement of claim.

The court's decision resulted in the summary dismissal of the claims brought by Santosh and the striking out of the balance of the claims brought by Tanay. However, the court granted Tanay leave to re-plead his statement of claim, with a deadline of 28 days from the date of the order to file and serve the amended statement of claim. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of reasonable prospects of success for some claims and the absence of a reasonable cause of action for others, while also considering the possibility of curing the defects in Tanay's claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The claims brought by the second applicant in [32] and [33] of the statement of claim are summarily dismissed.

2. The balance of the statement of claim is struck out.

3. The first applicant has leave to re-plead the statement of claim to be filed and served by on or before 28 days of the date of this order.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I am not satisfied at this stage that the defects in the Tanay claims are incurable and accordingly he should be given the opportunity to re-plead the statement of claim.CONCLUSION The claims pleaded in relation to Santosh in [32] and [33] of the statement of claim have no reasonable prospect of success and are summarily dismissed. Tanay’s claims in the balance of the statement of claim disclose no reasonable cause of action and the statement of claim is struck out. I grant leave to the first applicant to re-plead the statement of claim. Tanay is to file and serve an amended statement of claim by on or before 28 days from the date of the orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.