Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 2083

Appeal from:

Application for leave to appeal:

Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd [2018] FCCA 2040

Rangi v K-Mart Australia Ltd (No.2) [2018] FCCA 3622

File numbers: VID 949 of 2018
VID 1618 of 2018
Judges: STEWARD J
Date of judgment: 11 December 2019
Catchwords: COSTS – whether an applicant for leave to appeal from orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia instituted the proceedings without reasonable cause
Legislation:

Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) s 570

Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited:

Australian Workers’ Union v. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) (2013) 232 FCR 428

Baker v. Patrick Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) (2014) 145 ALD 548

Bechara v. Bates (No 2) [2018] FCA 583

Council of Kangan Batman Institute of Technology and Further Education v. Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2006) 156 FCR 275

Innes v. AAL Aviation Limited (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 130

Kanan v. Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union (1992) 43 IR 257

Kumar v. Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] FCA 735

R v. Moore; ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union of Australia (1978) 140 CLR 470

Rangi v. Kmart Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 1778

Unsworth v. Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd (2008) 216 FCR 122
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 15 November 2019
Registry: Victoria
Division: Fair Work Division
National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 14
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant was self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M McKenney
Solicitor for the Respondent: Lander & Rogers

ORDERS

VID 949 of 2018
VID 1618 of 2018
BETWEEN:

YUDHVIR RANGI

Applicant
AND:

KMART AUSTRALIA LTD

Respondent

JUDGE:

STEWARD J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 DECEMBER 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of proceedings VID949/2018 and VID1618/2018, fixed in the sum of $15,000.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STEWARD J:

  1. On 1 November 2019, I delivered judgment in both proceedings in Rangi v. Kmart Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 1778. I ordered that Mr Rangi’s applications for leave to appeal from two decisions of Judge Hartnett be dismissed. One of those decisions summarily dismissed Mr Rangi’s claims under the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (the “FW Act”); the other awarded costs against Mr Rangi in the sum of $13,192. As the applications were in relation to a matter arising under the FW Act, I invited the parties to file written submissions concerning the application of s 570 of the FW Act. In what follows I adopt the terminology from my first judgment.

    Applicable Legislation and Principles

  2. Section 570 of the FW Act relevantly provides:

    Costs only if proceeding instituted vexatiously etc.

    (1)A party to proceedings (including an appeal) in a court (including a court of a State…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd (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
[2019] FCA 2083
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rangi brought an action against Kmart Australia Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, claiming that a tag on a shirt she purchased had caused her injury. Kmart sought an order for the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, arguing that the application for leave to appeal from the orders made by the judge of the Federal Circuit Court was instituted without reasonable cause. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had instituted the proceedings without reasonable cause, and if so, whether an order for costs should be made against the applicant.

The court considered the circumstances in which the application for leave to appeal was made, including the merits of the applicant's case and the likelihood of success. The court found that the applicant had instituted the proceedings without reasonable cause and that an order for costs should be made against the applicant. The court noted that the applicant's case was weak, and the likelihood of success was low. The court also considered the conduct of the applicant during the proceedings, which it found to be unreasonable.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $15,000. The court noted that the amount of costs awarded was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the order for costs was not intended to punish the applicant but to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of proceedings VID949/2018 and VID1618/2018, fixed in the sum of $15,000.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 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.