Matthews v Australian Postal Corporation - [2007] FMCA 1174

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MATTHEWS v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

[2007] FMCA 1174

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Unlawful termination of employment – application to a Federal court – certificate required from Australian Industrial Relations Commission – applicant applied to the Commission only in relation to unfair dismissal – application to Court dismissed as incompetent.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Unsuccessful application to Court – instituted without reasonable cause – costs awarded against applicant.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.32AB(2)(b)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03A, 13.03A(e), 13.10(a), 16.05, 16.05(2)(a), 21.02(2)(a), Sch.1
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.643, 643(1), 650, 650(2), 659, 660, 661, 663, 663(1), 663(2), 663(5), 663(5)(a), 665, 666, 666(1)(a), 673

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Nestlé Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 717
Bahonko v Southern Health Care Network [1999] FCA 479
Geneff v Peterson (1986) 19 IR 40
McShane v Gippsland & East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative Limited [2002] FCA 1591
Ross; Ex parte Crozier [2001] FCA 1665

Applicant:

BRETT MATTHEWS

Respondent:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

File Number:

SYG1511 of 2007

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

11 July 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

11 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr M Tamvakologos

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

The substantive application is dismissed under Rule 13.10(a).
The applicant must pay the respondent’s costs set under Rule 21.02(2)(a) in the sum of $4,000.
The respondent must within the next 2 days send to the applicant a copy of today’s order, and must inform the applicant of the provisions of Rule 16.05(2)(a) and that the Court would expect that any application to set aside the order would be filed within 21 days.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1511 of 2007

BRETT MATTHEWS

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

I have before me an interlocutory application brought by a respondent for summary dismissal of a proceeding commenced in the Federal Court on 4 April 2007 by Mr Matthews, whom I shall refer to as the applicant. The applicant, acting for himself, sought to invoke the Federal Court’s jurisdiction under s.663 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”). This Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court under that section.
On 11 May 2007 the application was transferred to this Court by order under s.32AB(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), made on the initiative of the docket judge. It appears that this order was made at the first direction’s hearing, and in the absence of an appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.
There was also no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at a direction’s hearing held before me on 8 June 2007, when I fixed the respondent’s application for summary dismissal for hearing today. I am satisfied that the applicant has been put on notice of today’s listing, and of…

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 Matthews v Australian Postal Corporation 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: [2007] FMCA 1174
Decision Date: 11 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews initiated legal proceedings against the Australian Postal Corporation, seeking redress for what he claimed was an unlawful termination of his employment. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court, which is the appropriate venue for such matters under Australian industrial law. The central issue for the Court to decide was whether the applicant had complied with the requisite procedural prerequisites for bringing the action, specifically the requirement to obtain a certificate from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Matthews had applied to the Commission only in relation to unfair dismissal, but the Court required a broader certificate for unlawful termination claims.

The Court examined whether Matthews' application was instituted without reasonable cause and if the procedural requirements had been met. It found that Matthews had not obtained the necessary certificate from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which is a mandatory prerequisite for proceeding with claims of unlawful termination in the Federal Court. Consequently, the Court deemed the application incompetent and dismissed it under Rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Court Rules. Furthermore, given that the application was instituted without reasonable cause, the Court awarded costs against Matthews, setting them at $4,000 under Rule 21.02(2)(a).

The Court ordered that the respondent must notify the applicant of the provisions of Rule 16.05(2)(a) and inform them that any application to set aside the order should be filed within 21 days. The respondent was also required to provide Matthews with a copy of the Court's order within two days. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in industrial law matters and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

The substantive application is dismissed under Rule 13.10(a).

The applicant must pay the respondent’s costs set under Rule 21.02(2)(a) in the sum of $4,000.

The respondent must within the next 2 days send to the applicant a copy of today’s order, and must inform the applicant of the provisions of Rule 16.05(2)(a) and that the Court would expect that any application to set aside the order would be filed within 21 days.

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.