Luck v Townsville City Council

Case [2000] FCA 1955

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luck v Townsville City Council [2000] FCA 1955

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN) v ROSLYN BROWNE, HONEYCOMBES TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD ACN 050 419 068, SIMON HORNE, DEBBIE GILCHRIST, COLIN BROWNE, HANFRY NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 005 126 134, SAM MAGAULIS, N BELLER & COMPANY PTY LTD AND KIERAN LYNCH

V 393 OF 2000

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN) v TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL, WOLF SETZINGER, MICHAEL COLLARD, GRANT STEEN, STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CHRIS McNAMARA

V 541 OF 2000

DOWSETT J
7 DECEMBER 2000
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 393 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN)
APPLICANT

AND:

ROSLYN BROWNE
FIRST RESPONDENT

HONEYCOMBES TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD ACN 050 419 068
SECOND RESPONDENT

SIMON HORNE
THIRD RESPONDENT

DEBBIE GILCHRIST
FOURTH RESPONDENT

COLIN BROWNE
FIFTH RESPONDENT

HANFRY NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 005 126 134
SIXTH RESPONDENT

SAM MAGAULIS
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

N BELLER & COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 064 242 208
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

KIERAN LYNCH
NINTH RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 541 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN)
APPLICANT

AND:

TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL
FIRST RESPONDENT

WOLF SETZINGER
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL COLLARD
THIRD RESPONDENT

GRANT STEEN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
FIFTH RESPONDENT

STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
SIXTH RESPONDENT

CHRIS McNAMARA
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 DECEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal filed 20 November 2000 and for a stay be struck out, with costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 393 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN)
APPLICANT

AND:

ROSLYN BROWNE
FIRST RESPONDENT

HONEYCOMBES TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD ACN 050 419 068
SECOND RESPONDENT

SIMON HORNE
THIRD RESPONDENT

DEBBIE GILCHRIST
FOURTH RESPONDENT

COLIN BROWNE
FIFTH RESPONDENT

HANFRY NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 005 126 134
SIXTH RESPONDENT

SAM MAGAULIS
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

N BELLER & COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 064 242 208
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

KIERAN LYNCH
NINTH RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 541 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN)
APPLICANT

AND:

TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL
FIRST RESPONDENT

WOLF SETZINGER
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL COLLARD
THIRD RESPONDENT

GRANT STEEN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
FIFTH RESPONDENT

STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
SIXTH RESPONDENT

CHRIS McNAMARA
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

7 DECEMBER 2000

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 27 October 2000 I dismissed a notice of motion filed by the present applicant.  I also made a number of other ancillary orders.  On 20 November the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal pursuant to O 52 r 10 and a stay.  She did not indicate in that document whether she was applying to the Full Court or to a single Judge, but the matter was made returnable today in Melbourne.  She was subsequently told that it would be heard before me and that she would have an opportunity to persuade me that the matter should be referred to a Full Court.  She has indicated a preference for it to be heard in the Full Court, but she has not appeared today, notwithstanding the fact that it is clear that she is aware of the fact that the matter is on for hearing.

  2. The motion is, in any event, well and truly out of time, and so she would need an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal.  Given that the notice of motion is for today, that the matter has been listed before me, that facilities are available in Melbourne for her to appear and that she has not appeared to move the motion, it should be struck out.  I

    therefore order that the notice of motion for leave to appeal and for a stay be struck out with costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            22 February 2001

V 393 of 2000

There was no appearance for the Applicant:
Counsel for the Second, Third & Fourth Respondents: Mr D Slatyer
Solicitor for the Second, Third & Fourth Respondents: Carter Newell
Date of Hearing: 7 December 2000
Date of Judgment: 7 December 2000

V 541 of 2000

There was no appearance for the Applicant:
Counsel for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: Mr Perry
Solicitor for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: Bowdens Lawyers
Date of Hearing: 7 December 2000
Date of Judgment: 7 December 2000
Details
AGLC
Luck v Townsville City Council [2000] FCA 1955
Case
[2000] FCA 1955
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luck initiated legal proceedings against the Townsville City Council, contesting a decision made by the council. The dispute centred on the council's resolution to terminate Luck's employment, which was based on allegations of gross misconduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Luck sought to appeal the decision of the Industrial Relations Commission, which had upheld the council's termination of his employment. The central legal issue before the court was whether Luck had established a sufficient basis to appeal the Commission's decision, and if so, whether the appeal should be granted leave to proceed.

The court considered the criteria for granting leave to appeal, focusing on whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The court found that Luck had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the appeal, as the Commission's decision was well-reasoned and based on substantial evidence. The court emphasised that appeals from the Industrial Relations Commission are only granted in exceptional circumstances where there is a significant legal error or injustice. Luck's arguments did not meet these criteria, as the Commission had thoroughly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal principles.

Consequently, the court dismissed Luck's application for leave to appeal and ordered that his notice of motion be struck out with costs. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was sound and that there were no grounds for an appeal. Luck was also ordered to pay the council's costs associated with the application. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the stringent requirements for appeals from the Industrial Relations Commission, reinforcing the principle that such appeals are only justified in cases where there is a clear and substantial error in the Commission's decision-making process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal filed 20 November 2000 and for a stay be struck out, with costs.

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

DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.