Reed v Meriton Apartments Pty Limited
[2009] FMCA 435
•5 May 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| REED v MERITON APARTMENTS PTY LIMITED | [2009] FMCA 435 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Dismissal for non appearance. |
| Workplace Relations Act 1996 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 |
| Applicant: | MINORI REED |
| Respondent: | MERITON APARTMENTS PTY LIMITED |
| File Number: | SYG 636 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 5 May 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 5 May 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 5 May 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | General Counsel, Meriton Group |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
Applicant pay the Respondents’ costs assessed in the sum of $750.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 636 of 2009
| MINORI REED |
Applicant
And
| MERITON APARTMENTS PTY LIMITED |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
An application was filed on 17 March 2009 by the applicant, Ms Reed, seeking relief under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for what she described as a wrongful termination of her employment. When the matter came before the court for the first directions hearing on 14 April 2009 there was some discussion as to the name of the proper respondent. It would appear that, whilst the applicant thought that she worked for the group known as Meriton Apartments Pty Limited, her actual employer was a company know as Karimbla Constructions Services Pty Ltd. The lawyer for the respondent agreed that, as Karimbla had been named as the respondent in the Industrial Commission proceedings that were a required precursor to these proceedings, that company was the appropriate respondent in this court and agreed that any claim made against that company which was found to be substantiated would be redressed in accordance with the court orders.
In these circumstances the court made orders standing the matter over until today and requiring the applicant to file and serve an Amended Application nominating Karimbla Construction Services Pty Ltd as the respondent, together with a fully particularised statement of claim before 30 April 2009. No such Statement of Claim or Amended Application has been filed and today the applicant has not appeared. The court has power under Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 to dismiss an application where there is non-appearance by an applicant and, in the circumstances, I would propose to take that course. I will, however, ensure that a copy of this judgment is sent to the applicant so that, if she has good reason for not complying with the court orders and not attending today, she can apply to this court speedily to reinstate the proceedings. It will of course be necessary for her to provide the court with an affidavit explaining why the orders were not complied with and a draft Amended Application and detailed Statement of Claim would go a long way towards persuading the court to assist her by reinstating the matter.
In the meantime the application is dismissed. I order the applicant pay the respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $750.00.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
2