Ogawa v Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Training

Case [2005] FCA 1513

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ogawa v Secretary, Department of Education, Science & Training
[2005] FCA 1513

MEGUMI OGAWA v SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING AND MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING

QUD 161 OF 2005

DOWSETT J
21 OCTOBER 2005
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 161 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

MEGUMI OGAWA
APPLICANT

AND:

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 OCTOBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application filed on 4 October 2005 be dismissed;

2.The motions identified in the two notices of motion filed on 21 September 2005 be dismissed; and

3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including the motions and including reserved costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 161 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

MEGUMI OGAWA
APPLICANT

AND:

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

21 OCTOBER 2005

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. When I prepared my reasons in this matter, I disposed of the question of costs upon the basis that they would follow the event.  However it subsequently occurred to me that as Ms Ogawa was unrepresented, it would be appropriate specifically to invite her to make submissions on costs.  I have done so.  She has submitted that the nature of the proceedings, and, in particular, her perception that they are of significant public interest are reasons for not awarding costs against her.  I do not accept those views.  To my mind, there is no public interest in this matter.  It is based upon Ms Ogawa’s misconceptions.  In those circumstances, the applicant should pay the respondent’s costs of the application and of the motions. 

  2. The orders will therefore be that:

    ·that the application filed on 4 October 2005 be dismissed;

    ·the motions identified in the two notices of motion filed on 21 September 2005 be dismissed; and

    ·the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including the motions and including reserved costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            26 October 2005

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S McLeod
Solicitor for the Respondents: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 21 October 2005
Date of Judgment: 21 October 2005
Details
AGLC
Ogawa v Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Training [2005] FCA 1513
Case
[2005] FCA 1513
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Ogawa versus the Secretary of the Department of Education, Science and Training was heard. The applicant, Mr Ogawa, sought to challenge the decision of the respondent to dismiss him from his position as a university lecturer. The applicant argued that the dismissal was wrongful and that he was owed entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was required to determine the validity of the dismissal and whether the applicant was entitled to any entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court held that the dismissal was lawful and that the applicant was not entitled to any entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the respondent had followed proper procedures in dismissing the applicant and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The court also held that the applicant was not an employee of the respondent and therefore was not entitled to any entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court dismissed the application and both motions, and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including the motions and including reserved costs.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable law. The court found that the respondent had followed proper procedures in dismissing the applicant and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The court also held that the applicant was not an employee of the respondent and therefore was not entitled to any entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court's decision was final and binding, and the applicant was not entitled to appeal. The orders of the court were that the application and motions be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including the motions and including reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application filed on 4 October 2005 be dismissed;

2. The motions identified in the two notices of motion filed on 21 September 2005 be dismissed; and

3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including the motions and including reserved costs.

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

DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.