Muehlebach v Sidebottom - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1443

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Muehlebach v Sidebottom [2025] FedCFamC2G 1443

File number(s): MLG 2164 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE BINGHAM

Date of judgment: 5 September 2025

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – review of a decision of a Registrar – hearing de novo – small claims jurisdiction – underpayment claim – casual cleaner over a six year period – agreed rates of pay and award rates of pay – calculation of underpayment – identification of the employer – jurisdiction not invoked – orders set aside

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 45, 256(1), 545, 548, 557A and 557C

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 190 and 256(1)

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) s 16

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.04, 21,02, 21.10, 30.10(3) and 30.12

Cases cited:
Ejueyitsi v Commissioner of Police (Western Australia) [2013] FMCA 120

Newman & Tate [2020] FamCA 1114

Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd trading as Cyndan Chemicals [2012] NSWSC 935

Walker v State of Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38, [81]; McShane v Image Bollards Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 215

Zoological Board of Victoria v Australian Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers Union (1993) 49 IR 41

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 61

Date of last submission/s: 3 July 2025

Date of hearing: 3 July 2025

Place: Melbourne (by videoconference)

The Applicant: Appeared in person

The Respondent: Appeared in person
ORDERS

MLG 2164 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
RON MUEHLEBACH

Applicant

AND:
ESMOND SIDEBOTTOM

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BINGHAM

DATE OF ORDER:

5 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Orders of Registrar Donovan dated 17 March 2025 be set aside.
2.The Application in a Proceeding filed 16 April 2025 and the Application filed 2 July 2024 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BINGHAM

The Applicant Mr Ron Muehlebach seeks a review of a decision of a Judicial Registrar of this Court pursuant to s 256(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (the FCFCOA Act). The substantive application was made in the Court’s small claims jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act).
Mr Muehlebach alleges that between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2023[1] Mr Esmond Sidebottom contravened s 45 of the FW Act by underpaying his wages and failing to pay penalty rates in breach of clauses 11.2, 15.1,…

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.

Continue reading Muehlebach v Sidebottom

Details

AGLC: Muehlebach v Sidebottom [2025] FedCFamC2G 1443
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1443
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Muehlebach v Sidebottom, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing a decision of a Registrar. The case involved an underpayment claim made by Mr Muehlebach against Mr Sidebottom, who was identified as his employer over a period of six years during which Mr Muehlebach worked as a casual cleaner. The crux of the dispute was the calculation of underpayments based on both agreed rates of pay and award rates of pay. The court had to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the employer was correctly identified.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to hear Mr Muehlebach's claim and whether Mr Sidebottom was indeed his employer. The court had to assess the sufficiency of the claim in light of the statutory requirements under section 557A, which mandates that a contravention claim must specify the relevant contravention in detail. Given that Mr Muehlebach did not cross-examine Mr Sidebottom on the essential elements of section 557A and did not make any submissions on this aspect, the court found that the claim failed at the first hurdle due to its lack of specificity.

The court ruled that the tribunal had not invoked its jurisdiction correctly, as the claim did not meet the statutory requirements for a contravention claim under section 557A. Additionally, the identification of the employer was found to be insufficient, leading to the conclusion that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar’s orders and dismissed both the Review Application and the original claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The s 557A contravention claim was not actively pursued by Mr Muehlebach. Mr Muehlebach did not cross examine Mr Sidebottom on the essential of elements s 557A nor were any submissions made. In any event the details a claim did not specify the relevant serious contravention as required by s 557A(6) in these circumstances this claim fails at the first hurdle.CONCLUSION The Registrar’s Orders are to be set aside. Mr Muehlebach’s claim fails for want of jurisdiction. The Review Application, and the Application must be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	MLG 2164 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE BINGHAM
Date of judgment:	5 September 2025
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – review of a decision of a Registrar – hearing de novo – small claims jurisdiction – underpayment claim – casual cleaner over a six year period – agreed rates of pay and award rates of pay – calculation of underpayment – identification of the employer – jurisdiction not invoked – orders set aside
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 45, 256(1), 545, 548, 557A and 557C Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 190 and 256(1) Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) s 16 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.04, 21,02, 21.10, 30.10(3) and 30.12
Cases cited:	Ejueyitsi v Commissioner of Police (Western Australia) [2013] FMCA 120 Newman & Tate [2020] FamCA 1114 Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd trading as Cyndan Chemicals [2012] NSWSC 935 Walker v State of Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38, [81]; McShane v Image Bollards Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 215 Zoological Board of Victoria v Australian Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers Union (1993) 49 IR 41
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	61
Date of last submission/s:	3 July 2025
Date of hearing:	3 July 2025
Place:	Melbourne (by videoconference)
The Applicant:	Appeared in person
The Respondent:	Appeared in person

MLG 2164 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	RON MUEHLEBACH Applicant
AND:	ESMOND SIDEBOTTOM Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BINGHAM
DATE OF ORDER:	5 SEPTEMBER 2025