Quilligan v Uniting Care Queensland Limited
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1389
•28 August 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Quilligan v Uniting Care Queensland Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 1389
File number(s): SYG 2310 of 2025 Judgment of: JUDGE SKAROS Date of judgment: 28 August 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a proceeding requesting transfer to Brisbane Registry - consideration of mandatory factors – transfer request granted Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 (Cth) r 8.01
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 184
Cases cited: Archbishop Makarios Griniezakis v Morelas [2024] FCA 100
Comello Pty Ltd v Feeney [2011] FCA 1334
National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corp (1988) 19 FCR 155
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 33 Date of hearing: 22 August 2025 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Gorval, Gorval Lynch Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms A-Khavari of Counsel Solicitor for the First Respondent: UnitingCare Queensland Limited Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ms Dwight, Saines Legal ORDERS
SYG 2310 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: LAUREN QUILLIGAN
Applicant
AND: UNITINGCARE QUEENSLAND LIMITED (ABN 84 675 001 493)
First Respondent
LISA WILTON
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE SKAROS
DATE OF ORDER:
28 AUGUST 2025
BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Applicant is granted leave to file her application (SYG2310/2025): Dismissal from employment in contravention of a general protection, Fair Work Division, on 1 July 2025.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
2.The First and/or Second Respondent are to make any written request for further and better particulars from the Applicant in relation to the Applicant’s application and claim filed on 1 July 2025 on or before 4:00pm on 5 September 2025.
3.The Applicant is to respond in writing to any written request for further and better particulars from the First and/or Second Respondent on or before 4:00pm on 19 September 2025.
4.The Respondents are to file and serve a response/amended response and defence on or before 4:00pm on 17 October 2025.
5.The Applicant is to file and serve a reply on or before 4:00pm on 31 October 2025.
6.Pursuant to s 184 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 and r 8.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021, the proceeding (SYG2310/2025) be transferred from the Sydney registry to the Brisbane registry.
7.Pursuant to s 169 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), the matter be referred to a Registrar for mediation on a date after 31 October 2025.
8.If mediation is unsuccessful, the matter be listed for a directions hearing before a Judge in the Brisbane registry on a date to be fixed.
9.Parties have liberty to apply on two days’ notice.
10.Costs be reserved.
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).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
By application in a proceeding, the First Respondent seeks an order that proceeding SYG2310/2025 be transferred to the Brisbane Registry of this Court pursuant to s 184 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 21201 (FCFCOA Act) and r 8.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (FCFCOA Rules).
The applicant opposes transfer of the proceeding.
I am satisfied that that the proceeding should be transferred to the Brisbane Registry and, for reasons discussed further below, will so order.
BACKGROUND
On 30 June 2025, the Applicant attempted to file an application in the Fair Work Division, together with Form 2 (Claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging dismissal in contravention of a general protection), points of claim and a Certificate from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) issued on 16 June 2025. Due to technical difficulties with the online portal, the application was unable to be lodged via the portal until 1 July 2025 and was accepted for filing on the same day.
On 29 July 2025, the First Respondent filed their Response. The First Respondent identified that the application was filed 15 days after the Certificate under s 368 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) had been issued by the FWC. Section 370(a)(ii) of the FW Act requires the application be made within 14 days after the Certificate is issued, or within such period as the court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days. This means that unless time is extended by the court, the application had to be filed by 30 June 2025.
In their Response, the First Respondent also sought an order for transfer of the proceeding to the Brisbane Registry.
The issue of whether time should be extended to enable the applicant to file the application was resolved between the Applicant and First Respondent by the time the matter came before me at the first directions hearing on 22 August 2025, with the First Respondent consenting to time being extended for the Applicant to file her application on 1 July 2025. At the hearing, I also sought the position of the Second Respondent, who confirmed that they also consented to time being extended. Accordingly, the Applicant will be granted leave to file her application on 1 July 2025.
The issue that remains for consideration is whether proceeding SYG2310/2025 should be transferred to the Brisbane Registry. At the directions hearing, the Second Respondent confirmed that they also wished to have the matter transferred to Brisbane.
The parties made oral submissions in support of their respective positions to which I have had regard.
TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS
Section 184 of the FCFCOA Act provides for a Judge of the Court to order that the proceeding; or part thereof, be conducted or continued at a place specified in the order, subject to such conditions (if any) as the Judge imposes.
Rule 8.01(1) of the FCFCOA Rules provides for a party to a proceeding to make a request for a change of location. It states:
(1)A party who files an application or a response in a proceeding may apply to have the proceeding heard in another registry of the Court.
In considering such an application, the Court must have regard to the factors set out in r 8.01(2) of the Rules, as follows:
(a)the convenience of the parties; and
(b)the limiting of expense and the cost of the proceeding; and
(c)whether the matter has been listed for final hearing; and
(d)any other relevant matter.
The Applicant also relied upon National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corp (1988) 19 FCR 155 (Sentry) at 162 wherein the Full Court, in considering an application for transfer of proceedings from Victoria to New South Wales, said:
The power conferred on the court or a judge by s 48 is in terms wholly unfettered. It should be exercised flexibly having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. ……
The power conferred by s 48 recognises the national character of this court. The factors which the court is entitled to take into account in considering whether one city is more appropriate than another for interlocutory hearings or for the trial itself are numerous. The court must weigh those factors in each case. Residence of parties and of witnesses, expense to parties, the place where the cause of action arose and the convenience of the court itself are some of the factors that may be relevant in particular circumstances.
…
The balance of convenience is important, but its weight must vary from case to case. Ultimately the test is: where can the case be conducted or continued most suitably bearing in mind the interests of all the parties, the ends of justice in the determination of the issues between them, and the most efficient administration of the Court. It cannot and should not, in our opinion, be defined more closely or precisely.
I have had regard to the mandatory considerations in r 8.01(2) of the FCFCOA Rules and the submissions of the parties as follows:
The convenience of the parties
The Applicant contends that it would be more convenient to the parties for the matter to be maintained in the Sydney Registry where access to mediation could be facilitated more effectively. The Applicant was concerned that transfer of the proceedings would cause undue delay as the matter would have to go to the docket of another judge to recommence the process.
The Applicant further contended that any suggestion by the Respondents that it would be more convenient for the parties that the proceeding be transferred to Brisbane is premature in circumstances the Respondents, who have had the benefit of the points of claim for some time, had not made requests for particulars, nor filed a defence, and where it was not entirely clear what evidence is likely to be called. It was contended that at this early stage of the proceeding, the convenience of the parties supported maintaining the status quo.
The First Respondent contended that the only nexus to the current location (Sydney) was the Applicant’s solicitor and that this should be of little significance in the Court’s consideration: Archbishop Makarios Griniezakis v Morelas [2024] FCA 100 (Griniezakis) at [24].
Citing Comello Pty Ltd v Feeney [2011] FCA 1334 at [11], the First Respondent submitted that there was ‘sound reason’ for transfer of the proceeding to Brisbane. These were said to include the following:
·The Applicant, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent were all located in the Brisbane and the Gold Coast areas;
·The representatives of the First Respondent and the Second Respondent were also located in the Brisbane and the Gold Coast areas.
·The events that are the subject of the proceeding were in the Brisbane and Gold Coast areas.
·It is highly likely that the witnesses will be located in the Brisbane and Gold Coast areas.
The Second Respondent also submitted that the alleged events occurred in the Brisbane area, being where she and her family were located and where she was employed with the First Respondent.
Other than the Applicant’s legal representative, everyone else involved in the proceeding is in the Brisbane or Gold Coast areas. This is significant, particularly if this matter proceeds to trial. Notwithstanding that the proceeding is still in its initial stages, there is utility in the parties knowing as early as possible where significant events, such as mediation or the trial, will be conducted.
The Applicant’s concern that the matter would be unduly delayed and access to mediation would not be as quickly facilitated is unfounded. It is not the case that the proceeding, upon transfer to the Brisbane Registry, would be docketed to another judge only for the process to start afresh. There is nothing to prevent me from making procedural orders to facilitate the progress of this matter, including referral to mediation, in addition to an order for the proceeding to be transferred to the Brisbane Registry.
The Applicant has sought an order that the matter be referred to mediation. It would be far more convenient for all the parties (noting that the location of the legal representatives is generally of limited significance in this regard: Griniezakis at [24]) for mediation to take place in Brisbane, particularly if the parties prefer to have the mediation conducted in person.
For these reasons, I consider the convenience of the parties strongly favours transfer of the proceeding to the Brisbane registry.
The limiting of expense and the cost of the proceeding
The Applicant’s legal representative is in Sydney. The Applicant contended that if the matter proceeds to mediation, which is likely to occur, and the mediation is conducted remotely, then costs can be kept down. If, however, the matter is transferred, and mediation is conducted in person, then this would increase the Applicant’s costs, including costs for counsel.
The First Respondent contended that if any interlocutory matters arise and the matter proceeds to mediation, it would be of benefit for the parties to appear in person and that, it in the circumstances, a transfer to Brisbane would minimise the expense for the parties and their witnesses. The Second Respondent agreed.
I accept that if mediation is conducted remotely, then costs will be minimised for all the parties. However, it is not known if this matter will settle at mediation. If mediation is conducted in person and/or the matter proceeds to trial, then the costs for the Respondents would be significantly greater than for the Applicant if the matter is maintained in Sydney.
The cost implications for the parties favours the transfer of the proceeding to the Brisbane Registry, which in my view should occur prior to the matter being referred for mediation.
Whether the matter has been listed for final hearing
The matter commenced on 1 July 2025 and is still at the initial stage, having come before me for the first time on 22 August 2025. No programming orders are currently in train, and the matter has not been referred to mediation nor has a final hearing been listed.
I do not consider transfer of the proceeding at this early stage would, for reasons discussed above, unduly delay the matter. This is particularly so in circumstances where, as I have indicated, procedural orders can (and will) be made to facilitate the fair and efficient progress of the matter.
In the circumstances of this case, the fact the matter has not been listed for final hearing favours the transfer of the proceeding.
Any other relevant matter
Given the limited resources of the Court and its workload, transfer of the proceeding from Sydney to Brisbane will create additional work for registry staff and the receiving judge. Transfer of the matter and reallocation to another judge would be a cause of inconvenience to the Court and this weighs slightly against transfer of the proceeding.
Conclusion
Having carefully considered all the mandatory factors and matters raised by the parties, I am persuaded, for the reasons discussed above, that there is sound reason for transferring the proceeding to the Brisbane registry.
Whilst the transfer process is underway, procedural orders will also be made to facilitate the exchange of information between the parties and for the matter to be referred to mediation.
I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Skaros. Associate: TAJ
Dated: 28 August 2025
0
3
3