Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd

The case of Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Division of the Federal Circuit Court. Mr Rangi, a qualified lawyer and owner of Rangi Lawyers, filed an application against Kmart, alleging breaches of contract and contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He claimed that Kmart had reduced his salary and failed to promote him on three occasions due to his exercise of workplace rights. The primary judge granted summary judgment in favour of Kmart and ordered costs under section 570 of the Fair Work Act. Mr Rangi sought leave to appeal the decisions of the primary judge. The court had to decide whether the summary judgment and the costs order were attended by sufficient doubt, and if the alleged failures to promote had altered Mr Rangi’s position to his prejudice within the meaning of the Fair Work Act.

The court considered whether the primary judge’s decisions were attended by sufficient doubt. It noted that the primary judge had found that Mr Rangi had failed to establish his claims on the balance of probabilities. The court examined the evidence and found that the primary judge’s conclusions were reasonable and not open to reconsideration. The court also considered the application for costs under section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which allows the court to order costs if it is satisfied that the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious, or were instituted or conducted in a manner that was unreasonable, oppressive or wasteful of time or resources. The court found that the proceedings were not frivolous or vexatious, and that the decision to order costs warranted reconsideration. The court noted that Mr Rangi had not provided any evidence to support his claims, and that his allegations were not supported by the evidence.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The parties were ordered to confer on the issue of costs in respect of proceedings VID949/2018 and VID1618/2018 and to file agreed orders or submissions within 14 days. The court emphasised that the decision was not a reflection on the merits of the case, but rather a decision on the application for leave to appeal. The court also noted that the decision did not affect the outcome of the proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court.