Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited - [2025] FedCFamC2G 834

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 834

File number(s): SYG 466 of 2025
SYG 629 of 2025

Judgment of: JUDGE CAMERON

Date of judgment: 16 April 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for dismissal of second and third proceedings where the applicant seeks to raise matters that could have been or once had been raised in the first proceeding – whether abuse of process – relevant considerations – second and third proceedings dismissed

Cases cited: Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State [2006] 232 ALR 491

Division: Fair Work

Number of paragraphs: 8

Date of hearing: 16 April 2025

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms R Kumar

Solicitor for the Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills
ORDERS

SYG 466 of 2025 SYG 629 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
RAJESH MANIVANNAN

Applicant

AND:
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CAMERON

DATE OF ORDER:

16 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 13.13(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) the proceeding be dismissed.

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).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE CAMERON

The dispute between the parties has a long history of which they are both well aware. For some time now Mr Manivannan has been prosecuting claims against the respondent (TCS) associated with his Australia-based employment with it. He commenced that proceeding in 2022 and has now in 2025 commenced two further proceedings dealing with issues concerning his employment relationship with TCS that are not presently in issue in the first proceeding.
The matter is before the Court today on TCS’s application to dismiss the two proceedings that Mr Manivannan has commenced this year, the second and third proceedings.
There appears to be no contest between the parties on the historical facts of the litigation and a useful summary of relevant pleadings has been set out in the table annexed to TCS’s written submissions dated 28 March 2025.
The unavoidable conclusion to be drawn is that, in the two new proceedings, Mr Manivannan seeks to raise matters that could have been or once had been raised in the first proceeding. Mr Manivannan has put and I accept that he has not sought to act contrary to his obligations as a litigant in this Court or, in particular, to avoid the difficulties he would confront were he to seek now to include in the first proceeding…

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 Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited 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 834
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The dispute involved an employee, Manivannan, who had initiated two subsequent proceedings against his former employer, Tata Consultancy Services Limited, after an initial proceeding had been dismissed. Manivannan sought to raise issues in the second and third proceedings that could have been, or had previously been, raised in the initial proceeding. Tata Consultancy Services Limited applied to have the second and third proceedings dismissed, arguing that they constituted an abuse of process.

The court was required to determine whether the initiation of the second and third proceedings by Manivannan constituted an abuse of process. In assessing this, the court considered several factors, including whether the issues raised in the second and third proceedings were the same or substantially similar to those raised in the initial proceeding, whether there had been an attempt to re-litigate the same issues, and whether the second and third proceedings were brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The court also considered the practicalities and implications of allowing the second and third proceedings to continue.

The court found that the second and third proceedings were indeed an abuse of process. The issues raised in these proceedings were the same or substantially similar to those raised in the initial proceeding. Additionally, there was evidence of an attempt to re-litigate the same issues, and the proceedings appeared to be brought for an improper purpose. Given these findings, the court concluded that the second and third proceedings should be dismissed.

In light of the court's findings, the second and third proceedings were dismissed. The court's decision underscores the importance of avoiding repetitive litigation and the potential consequences of bringing proceedings that are deemed an abuse of process.

Orders