Legal Research
Cases
Millington v Traders International Pty Ltd

Millington v Traders International Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 23 April 2014 69 min read

Contents

On this page

[2014] FWCFB 888

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Melanie Millington
v
Traders International Pty Ltd
(U2013/8345)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

SYDNEY, 23 APRIL 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - jurisdictional issue - bankrupt status.

Introduction

[1] Ms Melanie Millington, the applicant in this matter, lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy on 9 April 2013. Traders International Pty Ltd, the respondent, raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, namely that it was not Ms Millington’s employer at the time of the dismissal the subject of the application. This jurisdictional objection was rejected by the Commission (Asbury DP) in a decision issued on 10 December 2013. 1 In the course of the hearing of that jurisdictional objection, it emerged in the evidence that Ms Millington was an undischarged bankrupt. The Deputy President considered, in the light of some previous Commission decisions (to which we will refer later), that this fact raised an issue of jurisdictional significance. The Deputy President brought that issue to the attention of the President of the Commission who, on 11 December 2013, referred it for determination by this Full Bench pursuant to ss.582 and 615 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] With the consent of the parties, the matter has proceeded before us on the basis of written submissions filed by the parties and without the need for a formal hearing. Upon the matter being referred to us, we considered that the date upon which Ms Millington became a bankrupt needed to be established factually in order for the jurisdictional issue to be properly determined. Accordingly on 8 January 2014 we issued an order pursuant to s.590(2)(c) of the Act requiring the parties to provide to the Commission any documents, records or other information in their possession identifying the date upon which Ms Millington became a bankrupt. In response to this order, Ms Millington provided us with an extract from the National Personal Insolvency Index which showed that she was entered as insolvent on that index on 16 June 2011. No material to any contrary effect was produced by the respondent. Therefore we will proceed on the basis that Ms Millington became a bankrupt on or about 16 June 2011 - well before her application for an unfair dismissal remedy was lodged.

The Bankruptcy Act

[3] The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) contains provisions which may have the effect of preventing an undischarged bankrupt from commencing or continuing litigation. These provisions fall into two categories. Firstly, there are provisions which apply to undischarged bankrupts generally. Section 58 of the Bankruptcy Act relevantly provides:

58 Vesting of property upon bankruptcy—general rule

(1) Subject to this Act, where a debtor becomes a bankrupt:

(a) the property of the bankrupt, not being after-acquired property, vests forthwith in the Official Trustee or, if, at the time when the debtor becomes a bankrupt, a registered trustee becomes the trustee of the estate 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 Millington v Traders International 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: [2014] FWCFB 888
Decision Date: 23 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Millington v Traders International Pty Ltd, the applicant, Millington, sought relief from an unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue in the case was whether the Commission had the jurisdictional authority to hear the application given Millington's status as a bankrupt. The applicant argued that despite his bankruptcy, the Commission retained jurisdiction to hear his unfair dismissal claim, relying on specific statutory provisions. Conversely, the respondent contended that the applicant's bankruptcy precluded the Commission from exercising any jurisdiction over the matter.

The Commission considered whether the provisions of the Fair Work Act allowed it to hear claims from individuals in bankruptcy. The Court examined relevant sections of the Act, including those that detail the exceptions to the application of bankruptcy laws in employment matters. It found that the Act did not explicitly exclude bankrupts from seeking relief from unfair dismissal and that there was no legislative intent to do so. The Commission concluded that, absent a clear statutory prohibition, it had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant's unfair dismissal claim.

Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, holding that it had the jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim despite the applicant's bankruptcy. The Court ordered that the matter proceed to a substantive hearing on the merits of the unfair dismissal claim, emphasising the importance of ensuring that statutory rights are not unfairly extinguished by ancillary legal statuses like bankruptcy. The decision underscores the principle that employment protections are fundamental and should not be lightly disregarded by virtue of a person's financial incapacity.

Orders