Legal Research
Cases
Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale

Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale

Link copied

Case Copied 21 October 2009 14 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RENTUZA v WESTSIDE AUTO WHOLESALE

[2009] FMCA 1022

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged unlawful termination – unlawful termination court application – requirement for s.777 Certificate to be attached – mandatory requirement – jurisdiction where no s.777 Certificate.

COSTS – Whether unreasonable act or omission caused a party to incur costs.

Fair Work Act 2009, ss.539(2), 545(2)(b), 570, 592(3), 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.79(3)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.45.07

Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.3) (2007) 162 FCR 392; [2007] FCA 879
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke (2008) 170 FCR 574; [2008] FCAFC 143
Federated Engine-Drivers & Firemen’s Association v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398
McAleer v University of Western Australia (No.2) (2007) 161 IR 151; [2007] FCA 247
R v Bolton [1835-42] All ER Rep 71
Re Boulton; Ex parte Construction, Forestry, Mining and Engineering Union (1998) 73 ALJR 129

Applicant:

DEBRA LEE RENTUZA

Respondent:

WESTSIDE AUTO WHOLESALE

File Number:

PEG 169 of 2009

Judgment of:

Lucev FM

Hearing date:

19 October 2009

Date of Last Submission:

19 October 2009

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

21 October 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Arvind C Pillay

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mr Arvind C Pillay

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr J Raftos

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

The matter be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs under s.570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in the sum of $2,350 by 4.00pm on 19 November 2009.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG 169 of 2009

DEBRA LEE RENTUZA

Applicant

And

WESTSIDE AUTO WHOLESALE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Orders made

When this matter came on for hearing before the Court on 19 October 2009 the Court made the following orders:
(1)The matter be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(2)The applicant pay the respondent’s costs under s.570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in the sum of $2,350 by 4.00pm on 19 November 2009.
and indicated that reasons for judgment would be handed down at a later time. These are those reasons for judgment, published from Chambers.

Application

This is an application made to the Court’s Fair Work Division and said to be commenced within the Court’s jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).[1]
[1] FW Act.
The application is accompanied by a Form 3 being a claim under the FW Act alleging unlawful termination of employment of the applicant, Ms Rentuza, by the respondent, Westside Auto Wholesale, on 1 September 2009.
The grounds of the claim of unlawful termination are set out at Part G, section 24, of the Form 3, and eschew all the grounds specified under s.772(1) of the FW Act and claim that the reasons for the unlawful termination are other reasons, details of which are given on an attached sheet. Those details are as follows:

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 Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale 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: [2009] FMCA 1022
Decision Date: 21 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale, the applicant, Rentuza, sought relief in the Federal Magistrates Court under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging unlawful termination of employment. The respondent, Westside Auto Wholesale, denied the allegations and contested the jurisdiction of the court due to the absence of a required certificate under section 777 of the Act. The court was tasked with determining whether the lack of this certificate deprived it of jurisdiction and whether the applicant's actions were unreasonable, potentially leading to an award of costs against them.

The court identified the central legal issue as the mandatory requirement of a section 777 certificate for the court to have jurisdiction over the application for unlawful termination. Given the absence of this certificate, the court had to decide if it could proceed with the matter or if it was required to dismiss the application. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant's decision to proceed without the necessary certificate constituted an unreasonable act or omission, warranting an order for costs under section 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act.

Upon examining the statutory framework, the court determined that the absence of a section 777 certificate was a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite. Consequently, the court lacked the authority to entertain the application, leading to its dismissal for want of jurisdiction. The court further found that the applicant's failure to secure the required certificate before filing the application was an unreasonable act or omission, justifying an award of costs to the respondent. The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs amounting to $2,350 by a specified deadline.

The final orders of the court were that the matter be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $2,350 by 4.00pm on 19 November 2009.

Orders

Orders of the court

The matter be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs under s.570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in the sum of $2,350 by 4.00pm on 19 November 2009.

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.