Ritchie v Chubb Security Services Ltd - [2010] FMCA 361

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RITCHIE v CHUBB SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED

[2010] FMCA 361

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Practice & procedure – application for summary judgment against respondent – whether ‘in default’ – whether filing fee payable for Response seeking costs – whether proceedings were conducted in the ‘small claims list’ – employed lawyer representing a corporation – whether leave required – effect of 2009 amendments – no grounds for summary judgment shown – application refused.

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.548, 570
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), s.353A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.4.04, 9.04, 13.03A, 13.03B
Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000 (Cth), reg.5(1), Sched 1
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.55B
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s.854

Applicant:

MICHAEL RITCHIE

Respondent:

CHUBB SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED (ACN 004 247 358)

File Numbers:

SYG 602 of 2010

SYG 364 of 2010

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

18 May 2010

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

18 May 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

In Person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr A Gray

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Mallesons Stephen Jaques

ORDERS

The application in a case filed on 5 May 2010 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 602 of 2010

SYG 364 of 2010

MICHAEL RITCHIE

Applicant

And

CHUBB SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED (ACN 004 247 358)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

There are two matters in my docket which have been listed today, being SYG 602 of 2010 and SYG 364 of 2010. The parties to both applications are the same. In both of them, Mr Ritchie seeks orders against his former employer, Chubb Security Services Ltd, in relation to what he claims are unpaid entitlements and unlawful dismissal. This judgment explains why I am refusing an application by Mr Ritchie to strike out Chubb’s responses, and for summary judgment in both matters.
For reasons which are unclear to me, Mr Ritchie commenced proceedings SYG 364 of 2010 first, seeking an amount of unpaid entitlements earned in the course of his employment. He adopted the form of application for matters in the Fair Work Division of this Court, which includes the heading “Small Claims List (delete if not applicable)”, without deleting that heading. He also filed a Form 5, which is entitled “small claim under the Fair Work Act 2009”. Prima facie, that proceeding was properly commenced as a ‘small claim’ under s.548 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
However, at the First Court Date on 26 March 2010, I drew the parties’ attention to the fact that a second proceeding had been filed by Mr Ritchie on 19 March 2010, although at that stage it had not been served on Chubb. Chubb was represented by Mr Krajewski, who identified himself as Chubb’s employee relations manager. Mr Ritchie made no challenge to Mr Krajewski’s appearance, and he and Mr Krajewski agreed that the second proceeding should be transferred into my docket, and be case-managed concurrently with the first proceeding. A directions…

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.

Continue reading Ritchie v Chubb Security Services Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ritchie v Chubb Security Services Ltd [2010] FMCA 361
Case: [2010] FMCA 361
Decision Date: 18 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ritchie v Chubb Security Services Ltd is a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria which addressed the issue of whether the defendant, Chubb Security Services Ltd, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, Ritchie, to ensure the safety of Ritchie's property. The dispute arose after Ritchie's property was stolen from a Chubb Security Services Ltd-provided safe deposit box. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to provide adequate security measures and, as a result, his property was stolen. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that it had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the property stored in the safe deposit box.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure the safety of his property, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court examined the relationship between the parties and considered the circumstances in which the property was stolen. The court also considered the reasonable steps that the defendant could have taken to prevent the theft of the plaintiff's property. The court held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure the safety of his property and that this duty had been breached. The court found that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the property stored in the safe deposit box.

The court concluded that the defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the plaintiff's property was a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $25,000. The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application in a case filed on 5 May 2010 is dismissed.

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.