FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 515
File number: QUD 378 of 2020 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 19 April 2021 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for judicial review of a decision of the Fair Work Commission – where originating application deficient in failing to provide a telephone number pursuant to r 2.16(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 – where applicant refused to provide telephone number to Court although case management direction to do so – application dismissed for want of compliance with a case management direction Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.16 Cases cited: Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd T/A Superior Wood [2019] FWC 5095
Division: Fair Work Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 6 Date of hearing: 19 April 2021 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms L Pendle of Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
QUD 378 of 2020 BETWEEN: JEREMY LEE
Applicant
AND: SUPERIOR WOOD PTY LTD TRADING AS SUPERIOR WOOD
First Respondent
FAIR WORK COMMISSION
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 APRIL 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Superior Wood Pty Ltd trading as Superior Wood be joined as the first respondent.
2.The Fair Work Commission become the second respondent.
3.The presently named second, third and fourth respondents, namely Vice President Adam Hatcher, Deputy President Amber Millhouse, and Commissioner Peter Hampton be removed as respondent parties.
4.The need for the service of the originating application on the new first respondent be dispensed with.
5.The applicant provide forthwith to the Court his telephone number as required by rule 2.16 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
6.The proceeding be dismissed for want of compliance with order number 6.
7.No order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)LOGAN J:
On 1 December 2020, Mr Jeremy Lee filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction an originating application in respect of a decision given by a Full Bench of the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration commission, presently known as the Fair Work Commission (Industrial Commission). On 10 November 2020, a Full Bench of the Industrial Commission dealt with an appeal by Mr Lee against a decision in the original jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission: see, respectively, Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 6011 and Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd T/A Superior Wood [2019] FWC 5095. There had been an earlier proceeding in the Full Bench of the Industrial Commission on 5 May 2020 in which then it also dealt with an appeal against that same decision in the Industrial Commission’s original jurisdiction: see Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 1301.
The originating application should not have been…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FCA 515
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court centred on whether the applicant's originating application complied with the procedural requirements of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the application was deficient for not providing Mr Lee's telephone number, as mandated by rule 2.16(1)(d). The Court also had to consider whether Mr Lee's refusal to provide his telephone number, despite a case management direction to do so, justified the dismissal of his application for want of compliance.
The Court found that the originating application was indeed deficient due to the omission of Mr Lee's telephone number. Despite being directed by the Court to provide this information, Mr Lee refused to comply, which led to the dismissal of the application. The Court emphasised that compliance with procedural requirements is essential for the proper administration of justice and that failing to adhere to such requirements could result in the dismissal of proceedings.
The Court ordered that Superior Wood Pty Ltd be joined as the first respondent, the Fair Work Commission as the second respondent, and that Vice President Adam Hatcher, Deputy President Amber Millhouse, and Commissioner Peter Hampton be removed from the list of respondents. Furthermore, the Court dispensed with the need for the service of the originating application on the new first respondent. Mr Lee was required to provide his telephone number immediately and the proceeding was dismissed for non-compliance with this requirement. No order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Superior Wood Pty Ltd trading as Superior Wood be joined as the first respondent.
2. The Fair Work Commission become the second respondent.
3. The presently named second, third and fourth respondents, namely Vice President Adam Hatcher, Deputy President Amber Millhouse, and Commissioner Peter Hampton be removed as respondent parties.
4. The need for the service of the originating application on the new first respondent be dispensed with.
5. The applicant provide forthwith to the Court his telephone number as required by rule 2.16 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
6. The proceeding be dismissed for want of compliance with order number 6.
7. No order as to costs.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.