Molini v S J Display Group Pty Ltd - [2020] FCCA 2390

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MOLINI v S J DISPLAY GROUP PTY LTD

[2020] FCCA 2390

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – extempore judgment on application for extension of time of one day.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.370, 371(2)

Cases cited:

Brodie-Hanns v MTC Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298.

Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8.

Clarke v Service to Youth Incorporated [2013] FCA 1018.

Applicant:

FAB MOLINI

Respondent:

S J DISPLAY GROUP PTY LTD

File Number:

MLG 1493 of 2020

Judgment of:

Judge Burchardt

Hearing date:

20 August 2020

Date of Last Submission:

20 August 2020

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

20 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicant:

Mr Jewell

Solicitors for the Applicant:

McDonald Murholme Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Avallone

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Jag Lawyers

ORDERS

The matter be listed for directions to the Dandenong Registry before Judge Burchardt on 16 September 2020 at 9:00am via telephone link.
An extension of time be granted to the Applicant pursuant to section 370 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1493 of 2020

FAB MOLINI

Applicant

And

S J DISPLAY GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

In this matter, the applicant seeks an extension of time of one day. That Application was made pursuant to section 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which relevantly provides that a person must not make a general protections court application unless, relevantly, the general protections court application is made within 14 days after the date the certificate is issued or there has been such period as the Court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days.
It should be noted that there are no statutory criteria, therefore, for the exercise of the discretion to extend time. It is clear and obvious that it must be exercised judicially.
Reference has been made by both parties to the decision of Marshall J in the well-known case of Brodie-Hanns v MTC Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298 in which His Honour Marshall J set out a number of matters which would be described as a summary of principles applicable to applications of this sort, and I do, of course, have regard with respect to those, although I would echo something said in a slightly different context.
As I say, there is no statutory criteria and the matters his Honour sets out are not - to adopt a phrase taken from McAlary-Smith (Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8) - a rigid catalogue of matters requiring consideration.
In the very helpful submissions of the respondent (paragraph 25) there is a quotation from the judgment of White J in Clarke v Service to Youth Incorporated [2013] FCA 1018. I propose to read the following:
Brodie-Hanns was decided before the High Court’s decision in Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541. In…

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 Molini v S J Display 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: [2020] FCCA 2390
Decision Date: 20 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Molini v S J Display Group Pty Ltd*, heard before Judge Burchardt, the applicant sought an extension of time of one day to file an application. The precise nature of the underlying dispute requiring this extension was not detailed in the provided text, but it concerned an industrial law matter.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time, specifically one day, to file their application. This required the court to consider the principles governing applications for extensions of time in industrial law proceedings.

Judge Burchardt granted the extension of time. While the specific reasoning for this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court was satisfied that the circumstances warranted the brief extension sought by the applicant.

Orders