Reid v BCA Logic Pty Ltd
[2012] FMCA 1184
•30 November 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| REID v BCA LOGIC PTY LTD | [2012] FMCA 1184 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction. |
| Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.45.13A |
| Applicant: | SCOTT REID |
| Respondent: | BCA LOGIC PTY LTD |
| File Number: | SYG 1861 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 30 November 2012 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 30 November 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 30 November 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In person |
| The Respondent: | Mr Harriman |
ORDERS
The application made on 27 August 2012 is dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1861 of 2012
| SCOTT REID |
Applicant
And
| BCA LOGIC PTY LTD |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore: Revised From Transcript)
I have an application before me today, described as a “Small Claim” under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”), made on 27 August 2012, supported by a “Form 5”.
Background
At the first Court date the applicant appeared in person. The respondent, which is a corporation, did not appear. There may have been some difficulties with service. In any event, the matter at that time was set down for a final hearing today in the absence of the respondent.
Before the Court
When the matter was called today, Mr Reid, the applicant, appeared in person, and Mr Harriman appeared for the respondent.
I accepted Mr Harriman’s statement from the bar table that he had the authority to represent the respondent as required by r.45.13A of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
At the outset it became clear from Mr Reid that the thrust of his complaint can best be described as an “unfair dismissal” complaint against the respondent. It is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint under the jurisdiction that Mr Reid sought to invoke. That is, under the “Small Claims” jurisdiction of this Court.
Mr Reid indicated that he understood this and would seek to look to alternative methods to resolve his complaint.
Conclusion
On that basis, it is appropriate that I make an order dismissing the application. The order, then, is, the application made on 27 August 2012 is dismissed. The second order is, there be no order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Date: 14 December 2012
0
0
2