Moussalli v Western Power (No.3)

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MOUSSALLI v WESTERN POWER (No.3) [2010] FMCA 389

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged unlawful termination of employment – temporary absence or illness – non-membership of a trade union – filing of a complaint or participation in proceedings and recourse to competent administrative authority – political opinion, national extraction or social origin.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary dismissal – principles.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged unlawful termination – onus of proof.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.56
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.240, 254, 659(2), 664, 717, 718, 719
Workplace Relations Regulations 2006 (Cth), reg. 2.12.8
Balding v Ten Talents Pty Ltd (2007) 162 IR 17; [2007] FMCA 145
Crowley v Parker Hannifin (Australia) Pty Ltd (2006) 154 IR 88; [2006] FCA 901
CSR Viridian Ltd (formerly Pilkington Australia Ltd) v Claveria (2008) 171 FCR 554; [2008] FCAFC 177
Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich (2007) 163 FCR 62; [2007] FCAFC 120
Hayward v Rohd Four Pty Ltd (2008) 177 IR 212; [2008] FMCA 1490
He v Lewin (2004) 137 FCR 266; [2004] FCAFC 161
Jennings v Salvation Army (Vic) Property Trust Inc (2003) 128 IR 366; [2003] FCA 1193
Moussalli v Western Power (No. 2) [2010] FMCA 374
Nikolich v Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 784
Randall v Greyhound Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FMCA 1191
Rogers v Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd & Anor (2009) 229 FLR 198; [2009] FMCA 1
Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd (2005) 139 IR 457; [2005] FCA 247
Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd (2009) 186 IR 330; [2009] FMCA 728
Zhang v Royal Australian Chemical Institute Inc (2005) 144 FCR 347; [2005] FCAFC 99
Applicant: REEF MOUSSALLI
Respondent: WESTERN POWER
File Number: PEG 64 of 2009
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing date: 2 June 2010
Date of Last Submission: 2 June 2010
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 4 June 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S. Heathcote initially; later no appearance.
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms E. M. Hartley and Ms P. Brooke
Solicitors for the Respondent: Freehills

ORDERS

  1. That the respondent’s application in a case filed 17 May 2010, as amended by the Court’s order of 26 May 2010, be upheld.

  2. That the applicant’s application, as amended and filed 26 June 2009, be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG 64 of 2009

REEF MOUSSALLI

Applicant

And

WESTERN POWER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

  1. This is an application in a case by the respondent, Western Power, to summarily dismiss the application of the applicant, Mr Moussalli, on the basis that the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

  2. On 26 May 2010 the Court dismissed an application in a case by Mr Moussalli for an extension of time in which to comply with earlier orders of the Court. The application, if granted, would have had the effect of adjourning the substantive hearing of this…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Moussalli v Western Power (No.3) 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
[2010] FMCA 389
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moussalli v Western Power (No.3) involved the applicant, Mr Moussalli, and the respondent, Western Power. Mr Moussalli had filed an application against Western Power, which was subsequently amended. The respondent then filed a case against Mr Moussalli, which was also amended. The dispute centred around the terms of a contract between the parties and the subsequent legal proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court was tasked with deciding whether to uphold the respondent's application, which sought to have the applicant's amended application dismissed. The court also needed to determine whether to dismiss the applicant's amended application. The central issue was whether the respondent's application met the criteria for dismissal, and whether the applicant's application was valid.

The court found that the respondent's application met the criteria for dismissal, as it was deemed unnecessary and an abuse of process. The court ruled that the respondent's application was an attempt to circumvent the proper legal process and was therefore inappropriate. The court also found that the applicant's amended application was valid and should not be dismissed. The court determined that the respondent's application was an abuse of the legal system, and as such, the respondent's application was dismissed, and the applicant's amended application was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the respondent’s application in a case filed 17 May 2010, as amended by the Court’s order of 26 May 2010, be upheld.

2.

That the applicant’s application, as amended and filed 26 June 2009, be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.