Rangi v Action Workforce Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2) - [2020] FCCA 428

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RANGI v ACTION WORKFORCE PTY LTD & ORS (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 428

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – COSTS – Fair Work proceedings – consideration of s.570(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 – whether the Applicant instituted proceedings without reasonable cause – determined that six of seven issues for determination by the Court were instituted without reasonable cause – Applicant seeks declaration against an entity not a party to the matter – declaration not made – costs ordered against the Applicant – costs calculated on scale.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.345, 570

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.16
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Schedule 1

Cases cited:

Rangi v Action Workforce Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] FCCA 3370
Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd(No.2) [2019] FCA 2083

Applicant:

PREM LATA RANGI

First Respondent:

ACTION WORKFORCE PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

ADVANCE MIX PTY LTD

Third Respondent

PAUL RIXON

File Number:

MLG 629 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Blake

Hearing date:

Determined on the papers

Date of Last Submission:

19 December 2019

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

28 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicant:

Mr Rangi

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Rangi Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr A Denton

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mark Diamond & Associates

ORDERS

The Applicant pay the Respondents’ costs fixed in the amount of $22,913 within 30 days of this Order.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 629 of 2018

PREM LATA RANGI

Applicant

And

ACTION WORKFORCE PTY LTD

First Respondent

ADVANCE MIX PTY LTD

Second Respondent

PAUL RIXON

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 21 November 2019, I delivered judgment in Rangi v Action Workforce Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] FCCA 3370. I made orders that the Application filed on 13 March 2018 be dismissed. I also made orders that permitted the Respondents to file an application in respect of costs incurred by them and for any such application to be determined on the papers.
By Application in a Case filed on 2 December 2019, the Respondents seek an order for costs against the Applicant fixed in the sum of $68,433.64. The Application in a Case was supported by an affidavit of Mark Diamond, solicitor, and also written submissions and submissions in reply.
In its Response filed on 16 December 2019, the Applicant opposes the making of a costs order and seeks, among other things, a declaration that the issues between the Applicant and a party described as Action MMX Pty Ltd, have not been decided by the Court. The Response was supported by an affidavit of the Applicant and written submissions.
Neither party requested a further oral hearing at the time of, or following the filing of, written submissions.
There are two issues for determination. First, whether Respondents should recover some or all of their costs. Second, whether the Court should issue the declaration sought by the Applicant.
For the reasons that follow, I have decided to award costs to…

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 Rangi v Action Workforce Pty Ltd and Ors (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: [2020] FCCA 428
Decision Date: 28 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Rangi v Action Workforce Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2)*, the applicant, Mr. Rangi, sought orders against Action Workforce Pty Ltd and other respondents in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute concerned allegations of contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr. Rangi had instituted proceedings without reasonable cause, pursuant to section 570(2)(a) of the *Fair Work Act 2009*. This question arose in the context of the Commission determining the substantive claims and considering the appropriate costs order.

Judge Blake found that six of the seven issues Mr. Rangi sought to have determined by the Commission were instituted without reasonable cause. Notably, the applicant also sought a declaration against an entity that was not a party to the proceedings, which the Commission determined could not be made. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Mr. Rangi pay the costs of the respondents, with those costs to be calculated on the standard scale.

Orders