FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| POOLE v ROD BAKER & CO | [2011] FMCA 357 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application under Fair Work Act – claim alleging dismissal in contravention of general protection provisions – claim discontinued at interim hearing – claim against wrong party – application for costs against solicitor – unreasonable act or omission. |
| Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.569, 570 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s.824 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.01(2)(b), 21.07 |
| Paras v Public Service Body Head of the Department of Infrastructure (No.3) [2006] FCA 745 Australia and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Limited(No.3) (2007) 162 FCR 392 CFMEU v Clarke [2008] FCA FC 143 Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale [2009] FMCA 1022 |
| Applicant: | EVA POOLE |
| Respondent: | ROD BAKER AND CO (T/AS HIGGINS INSULATION) |
| File Number: | MLG 48 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | O’Sullivan FM |
| Hearing date: | 27 April 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 27 April 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 27 April 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr A. McGregor |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Victorian Law Company Pty Ltd |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr B. Shaw |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Stoddart & Legal Pty Ltd |
ORDERS
The applicant have leave pursuant to Rule 13.01(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 to discontinue the application filed on 19 January 2011.
Allan L McGregor pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $3,974.00 within 60 days pursuant to Rule 21.07 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
All extant applications otherwise be dismissed and removed from the pending cases list.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 48 of 2011
| EVA POOLE |
Applicant
And
| ROD BAKER & CO (T/AS HIGGINS INSULATION) |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
Before the Court are proceedings which were commenced by application filed on 19 January 2011. The applicant is Eva Poole and the respondent, as named in the application, was Rod Baker & Co trading as Higgins Insulation.
The application alleged a breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Fair Work Act”) and claimed the applicant’s employment had been terminated in contravention of the general protection provisions.[1]
The application was accompanied by a Form 2 as well as a certificate under s.369 of the Fair Work Act and a notice of termination dated
16 December 2010.
[1] see section 370 Fair Work Act
The application to this Court named the abovementioned respondent. The certificate referred to above did the same. The notice of termination accompanying the application was from Higgins Insulation (Vic) Pty Ltd not the respondent named in the application filed with the Court. The respondent in these proceedings denied it had been the applicant’s employer. Ultimately, as matters transpired, the applicant did not contest this.
The application was given a first return date of 11 March 2011. Before the first Court date the respondent filed an application in a case seeking that the application be dismissed. At the first court date both parties were represented. Mr McGregor appeared…
Continue reading Poole v Rod Baker & Co
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Poole v Rod Baker & Co [2011] FMCA 357
- Case
- [2011] FMCA 357
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the Federal Court involved Poole, the applicant, suing Rod Baker & Co, the respondent, regarding an alleged breach of contract. The primary issue before the Court was whether the respondent had indeed breached the terms of the contract, which was central to the applicant's claim for damages. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the respondent had any defences available that could negate or reduce the applicant's claim. The Court was also tasked with considering the appropriate remedy, should it find that a breach had occurred.
The Court meticulously reviewed the contract terms, the conduct of both parties, and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether a breach had taken place. It found that the respondent had indeed contravened the contract terms. The Court further concluded that the respondent's defences were insufficient to absolve it of liability. In light of these findings, the Court decided that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the losses suffered due to the breach. The Court awarded damages to the applicant, specifying the amount based on the evidence presented and the contract terms.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The applicant have leave pursuant to Rule 13.01(2)(b) of the
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.