Hughes v Mainrange Corporation Pty Ltd (No. 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUGHES v MAINRANGE CORPORATION PTY LTD (No.2) [2009] FMCA 1044

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Small claims procedure – objection to jurisdiction – whether legislation has retrospective effect.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged unlawful termination – where no application made – where no election made – jurisdiction where no certificate and no election.

COSTS – Whether proceedings instituted without reasonable cause – whether unreasonable act or omission caused a party to incur costs.
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss. 323, 539, 548, 570(1), (2)(a) and (b)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.18, 79(3)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001(Cth), Schedule 1
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.643(14), 647, 650, 651, 659(2)(e), 663(1) and (6), 824

Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.3) (2007) 162 FCR 392; [2007] FCA 879
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke (2008) 170 FCR 574; [2008] FCAFC 143
Crowe v Comcare Australia (No. 1) [2002] FMCA 146
Fernando v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 724
Fisher v Hebburn Ltd (1960) 105 CLR 188
Hughes v Mainrange Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 1025
McAleer v University of Western Australia (No.2) (2007) 161 IR 151; [2007] FCA 247
Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261
Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale [2009] FMCA 1022
Skipworth v State of Western Australia (No. 2) (2008) 218 FLR 16; [2008] FMCA 544
Taylor v CGU Insurance Ltd [2005] FMCA 1073
Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 728
The State of Western Australia v Wallam [2008] WASCA 117
W & W [2003] FMCAfam 150
Windross v Transact Communications Pty Ltd [2002] FMCA 145

Justice Allsop, “Federal Jurisdiction and the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia in 2002” (2002) 23 Aust Bar Review 25

Justice Allsop “An Introduction to the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia”, (October 2007).

Applicant: MARION ANN HUGHES
Respondent: MAINRANGE CORPORATION PTY LTD
File Number: PEG 166 of 2009
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing date: 26 October 2009
Date of Last Submission: 26 October 2009
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 27 October 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Lynn
Solicitors for the Applicant: Lynn and Brown Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms J Auerbach
Solicitors for the Respondents: Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA

ORDERS

  1. The application be dismissed.

  2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs under Schedule 1 to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001(Cth) in the sum of $4,295 by 26 November 2009.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG 166 of 2009

MARION ANN HUGHES

Applicant

And

MAINRANGE CORPORATION PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Orders made

  1. When this matter was heard on 26 October 2009 the Court made the following orders:

    1.The application be dismissed.

    2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs under Schedule 1 to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001(Cth) in the sum of $4,295 by 26 November 2009.

  2. The Court indicated that because the matter was one of the first cases…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hughes v Mainrange Corporation Pty Ltd (No. 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2009] FMCA 1044
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hughes v Mainrange Corporation Pty Ltd (No. 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dealt with a dispute concerning the jurisdiction of the court and the legitimacy of the proceedings brought by the applicant against the respondent, a corporation. The applicant, Hughes, alleged that Mainrange had unlawfully terminated his employment and sought to have the matter heard under the small claims procedure. The respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the court, asserting that the legislation in question did not apply retrospectively and that the applicant had failed to make an application or election as required by the relevant legislation.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the legislation applied retrospectively and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter under the small claims procedure. The court had to determine if the applicant's failure to make the necessary application or election deprived the court of jurisdiction. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant's decision to commence the proceedings was reasonable and justified.

The court ruled that the legislation did not have retrospective effect and, therefore, did not apply to the applicant's case. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's failure to make an application or election under the relevant legislation meant that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court held that the applicant's decision to commence the proceedings was unreasonable and unjustified, leading to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to costs. The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs under Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General) Rules 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application be dismissed.

2.

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs under Schedule 1 to the

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.