Oldfield v One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd - [2020] FCCA 1865

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OLDFIELD v ONE STOP WAREHOUSE PTY LTD & ORS

[2020] FCCA 1865

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for summary dismissal – alternative application for strike out of pleadings – reasonable prospects of success.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.12, 340, 341, 351, 365, 368, 368(4), 370, 370(a), 370(b), 385, 386, 539(2), 545(2)(b), 550, 570(2)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.10(b), 13.10(c)

Applicant:

LIESA KAREN OLDFIELD

First Respondent:

ONE STOP WAREHOUSE PTY LTD ABN 46 161 849 323

Second Respondent:

ANSON ZHANG

Third Respondent:

JEFFREY YU

File Number:

BRG 927 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Jarrett

Hearing date:

5 June 2020

Date of Last Submission:

5 June 2020

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

8 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Rebetzke

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Susan Moriarty & Associates

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Mackie

Solicitors for the Respondents:

MJT Law

ORDERS

The amended application in a case filed on 1 June, 2020 is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 927 of 2019

LIESA KAREN OLDFIELD

Applicant

And

ONE STOP WAREHOUSE PTY LTD ABN 46 161 849 323

First Respondent

ANSON ZHANG

Second Respondent

JEFFREY YU

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By this application, the respondents seek orders that:
a)dismiss the substantive application filed 24 October, 2019 pursuant to rr.13.10(b) and (c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth); and
b)the applicant pay the respondents’ costs in respect of the entire application, fixed at $9,352.50.
Alternatively, the respondents seek orders that:
a)paragraphs 48(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the amended statement of claim filed 15 January, 2020 be struck out on the basis that they disclose no reasonable prospect of success; and consequentially
b)paragraphs 48(f) and 58(g) be struck out.
The applicant’s claim in her principal proceedings is for declarations of contravention, compensation and pecuniary penalty orders arising out of what she contends are contraventions by the first respondent of the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). She claims against the second and third respondents as accessories to the first respondent’s contraventions. The respondents oppose the application and deny any liability to the applicant.

The statutory framework

Chapter 4 of the Fair Work Act provides for compliance and enforcement. Part 4–1 provides for civil remedies and Division 2 provides for the circumstances in which a person might apply to a court for orders under the Fair Work Act. Subsection 539(2) provides that in respect of the civil remedy provisions specified in the table (that is part of that subsection), a person identified in the table can apply to a court for orders in relation to a contravention or proposed contravention of such provision. Here, the provisions of the Fair Work Act that the applicant claims the respondent has breached are set out in the table. She is qualified to apply for orders in respect of those contraventions.
However, there is a restriction upon an applicant applying to a court for orders based upon contraventions…

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 Oldfield v One Stop Warehouse 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 1865
Decision Date: 8 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Oldfield v One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr Oldfield, sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd, in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The proceedings concerned a dispute regarding Mr Oldfield's employment. One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd applied for summary dismissal of the proceedings, or in the alternative, for the pleadings to be struck out.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Oldfield's application had reasonable prospects of success. This required the Commission to consider the substantive merits of the claim and determine if there was a legally arguable case to be heard.

Judge Jarrett considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The Commission applied the principles governing summary dismissal and the striking out of pleadings, which require a high threshold to be met. The Commission found that Mr Oldfield's application lacked reasonable prospects of success, as it did not disclose a cause of action that could be sustained.

Consequently, the Commission ordered that the proceedings be dismissed.

Orders