Legal Research
Cases
Joseph v Worthington

Joseph v Worthington

Case [2017] VSC 501 29 August 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2017 00080

DAVID JOSEPH	Plaintiff
v
JAYNE WORTHINGTON (Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources)	First Defendant
THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 August 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Joseph v Worthington and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 501

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – CRIMINAL LAW – Application for order in the nature of certiorari quashing orders made by the County Court of Victoria finding the plaintiff guilty of contravening the Long Service Leave Act 1992, sub-s 72(2) – Whether error on the face of the record or jurisdictional error – Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163; Gurappaji v Tonkin [2015] 45 VR 324.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Long Service Leave Act 1992 – Entitlement to long service leave after 10 years continuous employment with one employer – Failure to pay long service leave entitlements on the day the employment ended – Limitation period for prosecution for contravention one year – Prosecution commenced more than one year after the day the employment ended – Whether continuing offence – Whether jurisdiction in the Industrial Division of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria under the Long Service Leave Act 1992 – R v Industrial Appeals Court; Ex part Barelli’s Bakeries Pty Ltd [1965] VR 615; R v Industrial Appeals Court; Ex parte Circle Realty Pty Ltd [1980] VR 459.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Gurvich QC with Mr K McDonald	David Joseph & Co
For the First Defendant	Mr P J Hanks QC	Maddocks
No appearance for the Second Defendant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Summary of conclusions................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

The Long Service Leave Act............................................................................................................. 4

Criminal Procedure Act..................................................................................................................... 7

Judicial Review................................................................................................................................... 8

Statutory construction principles.................................................................................................... 9

Summary of submissions............................................................................................................... 11

Plaintiff......................................................................................................................................... 11
First Defendant............................................................................................................................ 13

Continuing offences - the authorities........................................................................................... 16

Barelli’s Bakeries......................................................................................................................... 16
Circle Realty................................................................................................................................. 18
Other authorities......................................................................................................................... 24

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 26

The Text............................................................................................................................... 26
Context, subject matter and purpose.............................................................................. 27
Historical Considerations................................................................................................. 28
Other matters...................................................................................................................... 30

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 31

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff (‘Joseph’) seeks judicial review of a County Court decision dismissing his appeal against a conviction in the Magistrates’ Court.[1] The application is made pursuant to O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘Rules’).[2]
[1]By originating motion filed 13 January 2017.
[2]Justice Ginnane made orders on 8 August 2017 referring the hearing and determination of the proceeding to me pursuant to r 77.05 of the Rules.

Joseph seeks relief in the nature of certiorari to quash orders made by a Judge of the County Court and a declaration that sub-s 72(2) of the Long Service Leave Act 1992 (‘LSLA’) is not a continuing offence and is otherwise subject to the provisions of s 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘CPA’). Joseph seeks orders that the…

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 Joseph v Worthington

Details

AGLC: Joseph v Worthington [2017] VSC 501
Case: [2017] VSC 501
Decision Date: 29 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph brought an application for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the County Court's decision finding him guilty of contravening the Long Service Leave Act 1992. The dispute concerns Joseph's entitlement to long service leave after 10 years of continuous employment with one employer and the failure to pay these entitlements on the day his employment ended. The prosecution was commenced more than one year after the employment ended, raising questions about the statute's one-year limitation period for prosecution.

The legal issues before the court were whether the County Court's decision involved an error on the face of the record or a jurisdictional error, and whether the offence was continuing, allowing the Industrial Division of the Magistrates' Court to have jurisdiction. The court considered precedents including Craig v South Australia and Gurappaji v Tonkin. It also examined whether the Industrial Division of the Magistrates' Court could have jurisdiction under the Long Service Leave Act 1992, referencing cases such as R v Industrial Appeals Court; Ex parte Barelli's Bakeries Pty Ltd and R v Industrial Appeals Court; Ex parte Circle Realty Pty Ltd.

The Supreme Court found that the County Court's decision involved a jurisdictional error because the offence was not continuing and the limitation period had expired. The court quashed the County Court's decision, finding it was beyond the jurisdiction of the County Court. The Supreme Court determined that the Industrial Division of the Magistrates' Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period. Consequently, Joseph's application for certiorari was allowed, and the County Court's decision was quashed.

Orders