Meredith v Chad Group Australia Pty Ltd - [2021] FCCA 415

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEREDITH v CHAD GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

[2021] FCCA 415

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Ruling on pleading objections to applicant’s third proposed statement of claim.

Legislation:

Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), s. 134AB(1)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss. 341, 725, 732

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic)

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic), ss. 326, 327

Cases cited:

Barwon Spinners Pty Ltd v Podolak [2005] VSCA 33

Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570

Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown [2011] HCA 12

Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457.

Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440

Applicant:

PAUL MEREDITH

Respondent:

CHAD GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

File Number:

MLG 348 of 2020

Judgment of:

Judge Burchardt

Hearing date:

17 February 2021

Date of Last Submission:

25 February 2021

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

11 March 2021

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Dr McConvill

Solicitors for the Applicant:

James McConvill & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Zhou and Mr Nguyen

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Hutchinson Legal

ORDERS

Parts E, F, G and H of the applicant’s further statement of claim be struck out.
The proceedings shall be the subject of mediation to be held on a date to be fixed with the mediation to be conducted by a Registrar of the Court as mediator appointed by the Registrar of the Court.
The matter be listed for directions after mediation on a date to be fixed.
Costs reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 348 of 2020

PAUL MEREDITH

Applicant

And

CHAD GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is the latest pleading dispute in what is becoming a regrettably long - drawn out affair. The applicant filed his originating application on 23 December 2019. In that application, he sought unpaid wages in the sum of $6,840, payment in lieu of notice, $3,956, and other relatively small ancillary payments. Both the claim and the accompanying statement of claim referred to failure to pay money in lieu of notice, underpayments arising out of failure to permit meal breaks and payments sought for time worked but not paid. The statement of claim went on to plead negligence and a breach of duty of care alleged against the respondents (the second, third and fourth respondents have since been struck out as respondents by court order).
There have been two amended statements of claim filed since the first one. Relevantly for these purposes, on 10 October 2020 I ordered (for the second time) an amended statement of claim and a statement of claim was ultimately filed on 27 November 2020. This statement of claim, as I understand it, was settled by counsel and limits the claim to claims for underpayment of wages and non-payment of wages for time worked, giving rise to a total indebtedness of $5,656 in respect of wages and $22,437 in respect of meal breaks.
On 17 December 2020, the matter…

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 Meredith v Chad Group Australia 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: [2021] FCCA 415
Decision Date: 11 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meredith (the applicant) brought proceedings against Chad Group Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) before Judge Burchardt in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned objections raised by the respondent to the applicant's third proposed statement of claim.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's proposed third statement of claim, in relation to certain allegations of contravention of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), was an abuse of process. Specifically, the respondent argued that the proposed pleading was vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process because it sought to re-litigate issues that had already been determined by the Court in previous proceedings between the same parties.

Judge Burchardt considered the principles governing abuse of process, particularly in the context of re-litigation and the doctrine of *res judicata*. The Court found that the applicant's proposed pleading, by attempting to advance claims that had been definitively decided in prior judgments, constituted an abuse of process. The Court reasoned that allowing such a pleading would undermine the finality of judicial decisions and impose an unwarranted burden on the respondent.

Consequently, the Court upheld the respondent's objections and dismissed the applicant's third proposed statement of claim.

Orders