McGregor v Admosis Media Group Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

McGregor v Admosis Media Group Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1481

File number(s): MLG 591 of 2025
Judgment of: JUDGE O'SULLIVAN
Date of judgment: 10 September 2025  
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for transfer of proceeding to the Federal Court of Australia – relevant considerations.  
Legislation:

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 s 18

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 153

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 r 20.01
Cases cited:

Dove v Everforex Financial Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 752

Dove v Xmeta Pty Ltd (formally known as Everforex Financial Pty Ltd) (No 3) [2023] FCA 1320

Van den Berg v Monash Health [2022] FCA 796
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 34
Date of last submission/s: 13 August 2025
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Place: Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maddocks Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent: Marks Pritchard

ORDERS

MLG 591 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

MS ROBYN MCGREGOR

Applicant
AND:

ADMOSIS MEDIA GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE O'SULLIVAN

DATE OF ORDER:

10 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to section 153 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), these proceedings be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Court of Australia to be listed on a date to be advised.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE O’SULLIVAN

INTRODUCTION

  1. The applicant, Robyn McGregor, was employed by the respondent, Admosis Media Group Pty Ltd until 2024. This year the applicant commenced proceedings against the respondent in this Court under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for payment of $61,686.11, being unpaid wages, leave and superannuation initially using the small claims process. The applicant has since flagged her intention to amend her application and have the matter removed from the small claims process to join other potential respondents, and to seek other orders including penalties. The respondent has raised a cross claim, asserting a defence of equitable set off to the whole of the applicant’s claim/s and alleged the applicant made false and misleading representations before she was employed. The respondent asserts the applicant contravened sch 2 s 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL) and seeks orders for damages or compensation. 

  2. Because of this, and to provide some certainty as to how the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McGregor v Admosis Media Group 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
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 1481
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McGregor v Admosis Media Group Pty Ltd involved an application for the transfer of a proceeding from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCAFC) to the Federal Court of Australia (FCA). The applicant, McGregor, had previously been employed by 360South Pty Ltd, which was acquired by the respondent, Admosis Media Group Pty Ltd. The acquisition involved the transfer of McGregor’s employment, but his employment was subsequently terminated when the business was liquidated. McGregor initiated proceedings against Admosis Media Group, and the parties subsequently agreed to transfer the matter to the FCA for resolution.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the proceeding should be transferred from the FCAFC to the FCA under s.153 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021. The court was required to consider the relevant considerations under s.153(3) of the Act, including whether the proceeding involved questions of general importance, the availability of particular procedures appropriate for the class of proceeding, and the wishes of the parties. The court also had to consider the factors outlined in r.20.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021, such as whether the proceeding would be heard at less cost and more convenience to the parties if transferred.

In deciding the application, the court noted that the respondent’s cross-claim raised questions of general importance, including whether an employer could sue an employee for pre-employment misrepresentations and whether such a claim could be used as a defence of equitable set-off to defeat an employee’s claims for statutory entitlements. The court considered the analogous case of Dove v Everforex Financial Pty Ltd, where similar issues were raised and the proceeding was transferred to the FCA. The court also consulted with the Chief Judge of the FCAFC and the Chief Justice of the FCA, who agreed to the transfer. For these reasons, the court ordered the proceeding to be transferred to the FCA at the Melbourne Registry.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the proceeding be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. This decision was based on the general importance of the issues raised, the availability of appropriate procedures in the FCA, and the agreement of the relevant Chief Judges. The transfer aimed to ensure the efficient and effective resolution of the matter, considering the complexity and significance of the legal questions involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Because of this, and to provide some certainty as to how the matter should progress, the parties agreed to the respondent filing an application for the transfer of these proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia (FCA). The parties filed written submissions, and the application has been heard on the papers. BACKGROUND By way of background, in July 2024, the respondent acquired the assets of 360South Pty Ltd, the applicant’s previous employer. The applicant was involved in the pre-sale contract discussions. The sale involved inter alia, the transfer of the applicant’s employment to the respondent. However, the business that was sold was subsequently liquidated and applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated in late 2024. As indicated, after the proceedings had been commenced at a case management hearing, the parties consented to the respondent filing an application in a proceeding on 24 July 2025 seeking: An order pursuant to s.153(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and r.8.02 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 that the proceeding be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia. Both parties have filed submissions on the issue to which it will be necessary to turn presently. However, for the reasons set out below, it is in the interests of the administration of justice that these proceedings be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 153 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (Act) provides:153 Discretionary transfer of proceedings(1) If:(a)a proceeding is pending in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2); and(b) the proceeding is not a family law or child support proceeding;the Court may, by order, transfer the proceeding from the Court to the Federal Court.(2)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may transfer a proceeding:(a) on the application of a party to the proceeding; or(b) on its own initiative.(3)In deciding whether to transfer a proceeding to the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) must have regard to:(a) any Rules of Court made for the purposes of subsection 154(2); and(b)whether proceedings in respect of an associated matter are pending in the Federal Court; and(c)whether the resources of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) are sufficient to hear and determine the proceeding; and(d) the interests of the administration of justice.… Rule 20.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Rules) provides:20.01 Transfer to Federal Court(1)Unless the Court otherwise orders, an application under paragraph 153(2)(a) of the Act to transfer a proceeding from the Court to the Federal Court must:(a) be made on or before the first court date for the proceeding; and(b)be included in an application or a response in accordance with the approved form; and(c) be supported by an affidavit.Note: Subsection 153(1) of the Act provides that the Court may, by order, transfer a proceeding that is pending in the Court and is not a family law or child support proceeding to the Federal Court. Subsection 153(2) of the Act provides that the Court may transfer the proceeding on the application of a party to the proceeding or on its own initiative.(2)In addition to the factors to which the Court must have regard under subsection 153(3) of the Act in deciding whether to transfer a proceeding to the Federal Court, the Court must take the following factors into account:(a)whether the proceeding is likely to involve questions of general importance, such that it would be desirable for there to be a decision of the Federal Court on one or more of the points in issue;(b)whether, if the proceeding is transferred, it is likely to be heard and determined at less cost and more convenience to the parties than if the proceeding were not transferred;(c) whether the proceeding will be heard earlier in the Court;(d)the availability of particular procedures appropriate for the class of proceeding;(e) the wishes of the parties.(3)Before the Court makes an order under subsection 153(1) of the Act transferring a proceeding from the Court to the Federal Court:(a)the Court must consult the Chief Judge of the Court in relation to the proposed transfer; and(b)the Chief Judge of the Court must consult the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, or a delegate of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, in relation to the proposed transfer.(4)A failure to comply with this rule in relation to a proposed transfer of a proceeding under subsection 153(1) of the Act does not affect the validity of an order made under that subsection transferring the proceeding.THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In accordance with r 20.01(3) of the Rules, the Chief Judge and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court have been consulted and have agreed to the transfer of this matter to the Federal Court. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, I have ordered these proceedings be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia at the Melbourne Registry.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The applicant says the issues raised in the respondent’s submissions are of general importance. However, the applicant said it was not yet possible to determine the extent of those issues due to insufficient evidence. The applicant’s position was each of the other factors weighed against a transfer. The respondent filed submissions in reply taking issue with the applicant’s claims in that regard, pointing to its response and affidavit material. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS The mandatory considerations that are to be taken into account pursuant to sub-section 153(3) of the Act and rule 20.01 of the Rules. Whether the proceeding is likely to involve questions of general importance, such that it would be desirable for there to be a decision of the Federal Court or the Family Court on one or more of the points in issue Both parties accept that the respondent’s cross claim raises questions of general importance about; (1) whether an employer can sue an employee for the employee’s pre-employment misrepresentations and (2) whether such a claim may be permitted as a defence of equitable set off to defeat an employee’s claims for statutory entitlements. I note in the respondent’s submissions it was said: 14.On the first question, the following cases (drawn to the parties’ attention in the directions hearing of 5 June 2025) are apt:a.Dove v Everforex Financial Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 752 (Dove 1); b.Dove v Xmeta Pty Ltd (formerly known as Everforex Financial Pty Ltd) (No 3) [2023] FCA 1320 (Dove 2);15.In Dove 1, Cameron J transferred a proceeding to the Federal Court which involved a cross-claim alleging inter alia losses arising out of misrepresentations made by the employee, Mr Dove, which had induced the employer to enter into an employment contract with him; and losses to the employer’s business as a result of its reliance upon Mr Dove’s misrepresentations. These facts are analogous to the present case where it is alleged that the reason the Respondent entered into an employment contract with the Applicant as a transferring employee was because she had made misleading representations to the Respondent which induced it to acquire the company that was then her employer.16. Judge Cameron’s reasoning at [34] and [36] included the following:[34] I agree that whether an employer can sue an employee for the employee’s pre-employment misrepresentations is a matter of general importance and that a decision of the Federal Court on that question would, with respect, be more authoritative than a decision of this Court...[36] I conclude that it is in the interests of the administrative of justice that the proceeding be transferred to the Federal Court.17.Thereafter the matter was transferred to the Federal Court where the employee attempted to strike out the misleading and deceptive conduct claim. In Dove 2, Goodman J rejected the strike-out application because his Honour did not agree that the arguments as to misrepresentation were without foundation or that it was appropriate to dismiss the cross-claim on an interlocutory basis: Dove 2 at [73], [84], [87], [90].