Mbuzi v World Vision Australia - [2024] FedCFamC2G 651

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Mbuzi v World Vision Australia [2024] FedCFamC2G 651

File number(s): BRG 167 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE VASTA

Date of judgment: 11 July 2024

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Small Claims – where applicant submitted he should have been placed at a higher level because of experience and qualifications – where the position was clearly an entry level position – where the applicant claimed he did not ever take a paid tea break and was not told that he could take such a tea break – application dismissed

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 52

Date of last submission/s: 11 July 2024

Date of hearing: 11 July 2024

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: the Applicant appearing on his own behalf

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Sceteri, Solicitor of World Vision Australia
ORDERS

BRG 167 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
JOSIYAS MBUZI

Applicant

AND:
WORLD VISION AUSTRALIA ABN 28 004 778 081

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE VASTA

DATE OF ORDER:

11 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application by the Respondent for leave to be granted to be legally represented is refused.
2.The Application filed on 8 April 2024 and the application in a proceeding filed on 2 July 2024 are 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
(Ex tempore)
JUDGE VASTA

On 8 April 2024, the Applicant, Josiyas Mbuzi, filed an application in the small claims jurisdiction, asking for the Court to award him the sum of $98,597. The claim was made regarding two aspects of his employment with an organisation known as World Vision Australia.
The matter was case managed by the Registrar until the Respondent filed an application in a case for the matter to be removed to this Court and for the Respondent to be legally represented. I dealt with that aspect earlier today and denied the Respondent legal representation.
As both parties were present, and all the material was filed, I heard the substantive application as a small claim hearing with both parties making submissions on the material.
What the Applicant has said is that he applied for a position with World Vision as a fundraising promoter. It was a position that he had asked for. He said, in his application, that he had had previous experience with working with World Vision, and that he had quite a number of qualifications, including being in the midst of completing a doctorate in economics.
The Applicant…

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 Mbuzi v World Vision Australia 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: [2024] FedCFamC2G 651
Decision Date: 11 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mbuzi, brought an action against World Vision Australia in the Small Claims division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Mbuzi claimed that he should have been placed in a higher position than that offered by World Vision Australia, given his experience and qualifications. Mbuzi also claimed he was entitled to additional remuneration for not taking paid tea breaks.

The court had to determine whether the position offered by World Vision Australia was appropriate, given the applicant’s experience and qualifications. The court also had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to additional remuneration because he did not take paid tea breaks. The court needed to consider the terms and conditions of the employment contract and the nature of the position offered by World Vision Australia.

The court found that the position offered by World Vision Australia was appropriate, given that it was an entry-level position and the applicant did not have the necessary qualifications. The court also found that there was no requirement for the applicant to take paid tea breaks, and the applicant was not entitled to additional remuneration for not taking such breaks. The applicant’s claims were dismissed.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs.

Orders