Ponzio v Ashley Services Group Limited (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC2G 966

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ponzio v Ashley Services Group Limited (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 966

File number(s): PEG 314 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE LIVERIS

Date of judgment: 20 June 2025

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – GENERAL PROTECTIONS – application for dismissal on the basis of the applicant’s default – where the applicant is self-represented – where the applicant has not complied with orders to file and serve trial evidence or an outline of submissions – where the applicant was not prepared for the final hearing – where the applicant was found to be in default – consideration of factors relevant to exercise of discretion – order made dismissing the proceedings in the applicant’s default

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Division 13.2

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) provides at ss 5(a), 143, 190, 191, 192(3), 192(4)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2 (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 r 13.04(1), 13.05(1), 13.05(6)

Cases cited:
Ponzio v Ashley Services Group Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 289

Tahmasebi v Adelaide Transport Pty Ltd [2021] FedCFamC2G 288

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 52

Date of hearing: 3-4 June 2025

Place: Perth

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Diamond of Mark Diamond & Associates
ORDERS

PEG 314 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
LAURA PONZIO

Applicant

AND:
ASHLEY SERVICES GROUP LIMITED

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LIVERIS

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to rule 13.05(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 the application filed on 27 December 2023 be dismissed.
2.There be no order for costs.

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).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE LIVERIS

These proceedings were commenced by the applicant on 27 December 2023, in an application that was lodged on that date and accepted for filing on 29 December 2023. In the application, the applicant has alleged contraventions by the respondent, Ashley Services Group Limited, of Part 3‑1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The parties agree that the applicant started work for the respondent on 11 September 2023 as a trainer/assessor. The respondent’s business is in vocational training. It operates nationally and provides services to students. The applicant was working in a program for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The respondent asserts that the employment ended on 13 October 2023, and a letter of termination is annexed to the…

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 Ponzio v Ashley Services Group Limited (No 2) 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: [2025] FedCFamC2G 966
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ponzio versus Ashley Services Group Limited, the applicant, Ponzio, sought to challenge a decision made by the respondent, Ashley Services Group Limited, in an industrial relations dispute. The proceedings were heard in the Fair Work Commission. Ponzio, who was self-represented, faced an application for dismissal based on his failure to comply with procedural orders, including the filing and serving of trial evidence and an outline of submissions. Additionally, Ponzio was found to be unprepared for the final hearing, which further supported the respondent's application for dismissal.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the proceedings should be dismissed due to Ponzio's default. The court considered various factors relevant to the exercise of its discretion, such as Ponzio's conduct throughout the proceedings, the impact of his default on the administration of justice, and whether there were any mitigating circumstances that could justify an extension of time or leniency. The court found that Ponzio's persistent non-compliance with procedural requirements, coupled with his lack of preparation for the final hearing, justified the exercise of its discretion to dismiss the proceedings.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that dismissing the proceedings was the appropriate course of action. The court held that Ponzio's default warranted the application of the discretionary power to dismiss the case, and no compelling circumstances were presented to warrant an alternative outcome. Consequently, the court ordered that the proceedings be dismissed in Ponzio's default, effectively bringing an end to the industrial relations dispute.

Orders