Newton v Gallawah Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Newton v Gallawah Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 747  

File numbers: MLG 974 of 2023
Judgment of: JUDGE CHAMPION
Date of judgment: 21 August 2023
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application pursuant to s. 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for extension of time within which to make a general protections court application – whether Applicant has reasonable explanation for delay – representative error – extension of time granted
Legislation:  Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss. 368, 370
Cases cited:

Brisbane South Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; [1996] HCA 25

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

Clarke v Service to Youth Council Inc [2013] FCA 1018

Comcare v A’Hearn (1993) 45 FCR 441

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 17
Date of last submissions: 18 August 2023
Date of hearing: On the papers
Place: Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant: Saines Legal
Solicitor for the Respondent: McCracken & McCracken Lawyers

ORDERS

MLG 974 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

LEAH NEWTON

Applicant

AND:

GALLAWAH PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CHAMPION

DATE OF ORDER:

21 AUGUST 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.An extension of time be granted for the filing of the application and the matter proceed as if it was filed within time.

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 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE CHAMPION:

INTRODUCTION

  1. The Applicant Ms Leah Newton (Ms Newton) seeks an extension of time pursuant to s. 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to make a general protections court application in relation to an alleged contravention or contraventions of Part 3.1 of the Act. The Respondent is her former employer, Gallawah Pty Ltd. (Gallawah). Ms Newton’s court application was made on 2 June 2023, some 20 days after the 14 day period set out in s. 370(a)(ii) of the Act. The evidence on this extension of time application is that Ms Newton’s court application was late because of her representative’s inexperience and unfamiliarity with the Court’s eLodgment system.

  2. In circumstances in which the delay is short, the delay is due to the inexperience of her representative and Gallawah claims no prejudice because of the delay, it is in the interests of justice to extend time. Except to note that on the face of the material currently before the Court the Applicant may have an arguable claim, it is not possible to form any more definitive view (one way or the other) as to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Newton v Gallawah 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
[2023] FedCFamC2G 747
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Newton filed an application for an extension of time to lodge her general protections court application. Gallawah did not oppose the application and awaited the Court's decision. Ms Newton, employed by Gallawah, claims she was dismissed due to a complaint about her pay rate. The Fair Work Commission issued a certificate, and Ms Newton's application for the general protections court was due by 12 May 2023. Ms Newton believed her application was lodged on time due to an email from her representative, Mr Parry. However, the application was not successfully lodged because the fee was not paid. Mr Parry did not notice the Court's email indicating the application was pending. When Ms Newton contacted Mr Parry, he discovered the error and attempted to remedy it, but the application was now out of time. The court had to decide whether Ms Newton had a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging her application.

The court considered the circumstances of the delay, noting that Mr Parry's inexperience and error in not ensuring the fee was paid constituted a reasonable explanation for the delay. The court held that Ms Newton's representative's error was not attributable to her, and she had acted promptly to address the issue once she became aware of it. The court also noted that Gallawah did not oppose the application and had not suffered any prejudice. The court found that the delay was reasonable and granted the extension of time.

The court concluded that the delay in lodging Ms Newton's application was due to an error by her representative, which was not attributable to her. The court granted the application for an extension of time, allowing Ms Newton to lodge her general protections court application. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

After Ms Newton filed this material, by a letter of its lawyers to the Court dated 2 August 2023, Gallawah wrote that it did not intend to make a submission and “does not consent nor oppose the applicant’s application for an extension, and awaits the Court’s decision based upon the material filed.”FACTS In her substantive application, Ms Newton sets out that she was employed as a Social and Community Services Coordinator with Gallawah from 15 February 2022 until 3 January 2023. She alleges (among other matters) that she made a complaint to a director of Gallawah that she was being paid at a rate less than the minimum prescribed award rate and that a reason for her dismissal on 3 January 2023 was the making of that complaint. The determination of the merits of her claim would be a matter for evidence at any trial. On 28 April 2023 the Fair Work Commission (FWC) issued a certificate under s. 368(3)(a) in relation to the dispute (Certificate). The 14-day deadline for the making of a general protections court application pursuant to s. 370(a)(ii) was 12 May 2023.Ms Newton’s affidavit In an affidavit made in support of her application for an extension of time, Ms Newton deposes that she was a member of the Nurses Professional Association of Victoria (NPAV). Mr Parry was the NPAV officer assigned to assist her in her case. After the FWC issued the Certificate, and before 12 May 2023, she instructed Mr Parry to file necessary court documents for her general protections court application. On 12 May 2023 Mr Parry emailed her that he had lodged the court documents. Because of Mr Parry’s email to her, Ms Newton believed her application had been lodged on 12 May 2023, within time. Mr Parry’s affidavit In his affidavit, Mr Parry corroborates that Ms Newton instructed him to file her general protections court application. On 12 May 2023 he attempted to file Ms Newton’s application using the Court’s eLodgement portal. He exhibits a Court response email dated 12 May 2023. The Court’s email stated that “Your lodgement has been marked Pending.” It was sent to an email address at the NPAV that Mr Parry did not personally monitor. He did not see that email. On 29 May 2023, Ms Newton telephoned Mr Parry which reminded him that he needed to check for a court-stamped copy of Ms Newton’s application. From 12 May 2023 until 29 May 2023, when Ms Newton’s phone call prompted him to check the Court’s eLodgement portal, Mr Parry presumed that the application had been successfully lodged. Only on checking the eLodgement portal he learned that the “lodgement must be rejected as no fee has been raised on it.” Between 29 May 2023 and 1 June 2023 Mr Parry made various communications to the Court’s registry as he endeavoured to remedy issues with the filing of Ms Newton’s application. By an email dated 1 June 2023 the Court notified Mr Parry that a further attempt to lodge the documents was marked "pending” because the application was now out of time. The explanation Mr Parry duly offered was:this previous application was rejected due to the filing fee not being raised at elodgement, primarily due to inexperience and error of the applicant’s representative in prompting fee payment […]

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.