FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PUGLIESE v PAULL | [2011] FMCA 95 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged unlawful termination – application for non-lawyer to appear for respondent. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for non-lawyer to appear for respondent – respondent an individual – non-lawyer employee of organisation – organisation not a registered organisation – whether non-lawyer employee of unregistered organisation has a right to appear. WORDS AND PHRASES – “authorises”. |
| Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PQ(1)(c) Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.352, 596(1), (2) and (4), 777 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), ss.6, 353A Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), reg.3.01 Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.44 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.9.04 Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s.81E Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.100, 684, 854(10)(b) and (12), Schedule 1, Chapter 1, cl.6 |
| DC Pearce & R Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (6th Edn) (Chatswood: LexisNexis Australia, 2006) J Tarrant, Amending Final Judgments and Orders (Sydney: Federation Press, 2010) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (3rd Edn) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) |
| Applicant: | ELIGIEO LUCIANO PUGLIESE |
| Respondent: | DAVID KEVIN PAULL |
| File Number: | PEG 172 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 14 February 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 14 February 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 25 February 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr P J Griffin |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Peter J Griffin & Co |
| For the Respondent: | Mr R Gifford (by leave to argue the application for leave to represent only) |
ORDERS
That the respondent’s application in a case filed 20 December 2010 be dismissed.
The matter be adjourned to a directions hearing at 9.00am on 11 March 2011.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 172 of 2010
| ELIGIEO LUCIANO PUGLIESE |
Applicant
And
| DAVID KEVIN PAULL |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application in a case
The respondent, who is an individual, seeks to have Rodney Hudson Gifford, a non-lawyer employee of an organisation not registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act
Continue reading Pugliese v Paull
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pugliese v Paull [2011] FMCA 95
- Case
- [2011] FMCA 95
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and whether they permitted a non-lawyer employee of an unregistered organisation to represent a respondent. The court found that the statutory language did not explicitly include non-lawyers as those who could represent respondents. The court held that the term “authorises” in the statute did not extend to allowing non-lawyers to appear on behalf of respondents. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for the non-lawyer to represent the respondent.
The court ordered that the respondent’s application be dismissed and that the matter be adjourned to a directions hearing. The directions hearing was set for 9.00am on 11 March 2011, providing an opportunity for the parties to address the procedural and substantive issues in the case. This decision underscored the importance of adherence to the statutory requirements governing representation in employment disputes and highlighted the limitations on who can appear on behalf of a respondent in such cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the respondent’s application in a case filed 20 December 2010 be dismissed.
2.
The matter be adjourned to a directions hearing at 9.00am on 11 March 2011.
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.