Molina v Galloway

This case involves a dispute between Milena Molina and Raymond Zhai, who are the applicants, and Brett Galloway, who is the respondent. The applicants are seeking enforcement of orders made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for compensation in lieu of reinstatement and for penalties for alleged non-compliance with those orders. The proceedings were initiated in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCA) and the applicants have applied for substituted service as the respondent has not responded to attempts to serve him personally. The legal issues before the court include whether substituted service is appropriate given the respondent's failure to comply with orders to provide an address for service, and whether the applicants are entitled to the relief sought in their Statement of Claim.

The court considered the applicants' application for substituted service, noting that the respondent had failed to comply with prior orders to provide an address for service. The court held that substituted service was appropriate in the circumstances, particularly as the applicants had made multiple attempts to serve the respondent personally without success. The court also considered the relief sought by the applicants, including declarations, civil penalties, and costs. The court noted that the applicants had already been awarded compensation by the FWC and that the issue of non-compliance with those orders was before the court. The court found that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for the relief sought and that substituted service was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court made orders for substituted service, allowing the applicants to serve the respondent by emailing him at a particular Gmail address. The court also made orders for the preparation of the matter, including for the respondent to file and serve a Defence within a specified timeframe. The court further ordered that the matter be referred to mediation before a Registrar of the Court, with a view to resolving the matter without the need for a hearing. In the event that mediation was unsuccessful, the parties were ordered to jointly approach the Chambers to Judge Given for a directions hearing. Costs were reserved pending the outcome of the mediation and any further directions from the court.

No final orders were made in this case as the matter is still pending before the court. The court's orders were focused on the procedural aspects of the case, including service and preparation, and the referral to mediation. The court held that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for the relief sought and that substituted service was appropriate in the circumstances. The matter remains before the court for further directions and a potential hearing if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through mediation.