Knespal v Regional Express Holding Ltd (Administrators Appointed) - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1082

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Knespal v Regional Express Holding Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1082

File number(s): SYG 1228 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE LAING

Date of judgment: 9 July 2025

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Practice and procedure – respondent company in administration – administrators do not consent to the matter proceeding – orders made providing for dismissal of the application if specified steps are not taken by a certain date

Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 440D

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 340

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 140

Cases cited:
Donnola v Silverleaf Constructions Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 577

Rhind v Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator’s Appointed) [2023] FedCFamC2G 50

Zemin & Kaba (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 748

Division: Fair Work

Number of paragraphs: 9

Date of hearing: 9 July 2025

Applicant: Appearing via AVL

Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

SYG 1228 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
HELANE KNESPAL

Applicant

AND:
REGIONAL EXPRESS HOLDING LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LAING

DATE OF ORDER:

9 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Absent any Application in a Proceeding being filed by the applicant by 9 January 2026 seeking directions on the basis that:
(a)an application is or has been made under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to an appropriate Court for leave to proceed against Regional Express Holding Ltd; or
(b)Regional Express Holding Ltd is no longer under administration; then

all outstanding applications will be dismissed under s 140 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
JUDGE LAING:

This proceeding involves an application filed on 1 August 2023, through which the applicant (Ms Knespal) contends that she was dismissed from employment in contravention of s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The matter was adjourned for mediation, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Orders were made by a Registrar of this Court on 24 May 2024 providing timetabling for an amended application, response and any reply, as well as for the filing and service of evidence. Further to this timetabling, the matter was listed for directions in November 2024.
On 24 September 2024, my Associate was notified by email that administrators had been appointed in relation to the respondent (Regional Express). Reference was made to s 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which precludes the continuation of the proceeding without…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Knespal v Regional Express Holding Ltd (Administrators Appoi... 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: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1082
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Knespal v Regional Express Holding Ltd (Administrators Appointed), the applicant, an employee, sought relief against the respondent company, which was in the process of administration. The central issue in dispute was whether the application could proceed given the company's status. The Federal Circuit and Family Court addressed the matter, focusing on the procedural aspects of handling cases involving companies under administration when the appointed administrators refuse to consent to the matter continuing.

The court was tasked with interpreting relevant industrial laws and determining whether it had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case under such circumstances. The pivotal legal issue was whether the court could entertain the application without the consent of the company's administrators, and if so, what procedural steps should be mandated to ensure fairness and due process. The court examined the statutory provisions governing the administration of companies and the rules pertaining to industrial law applications.

After careful consideration, the court ruled that it would not proceed with the matter unless the administrators consented or certain specified procedural steps were undertaken by a designated date. The court's reasoning hinged on the necessity to balance the rights of the applicant against the administrative processes governing the respondent company. It was determined that without adherence to these procedural requirements, the application could not proceed, thereby protecting the integrity of the administration process. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the need for clear directives to manage such complex industrial law disputes.

Orders