Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Case [2018] FCCA 2403 29 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RYAN v J-CORP PTY LTD [2018] FCCA 2403

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – General protections application under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – application for extension of time – consideration of factors – request for extension granted

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court Act (Cth), s.46, 81(2)
Federal Circuit Court Rules (Cth), rr.2.05(3), 21.02(1)(a)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.340, 368, 370, 570(2)

Cases cited:

ALG17 & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 2816
Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] FCCA 3233
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; (1996) 186 CLR 541
Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298
CFMEU & Another v Form 700 Pty Ltd and Others [2017] FCCA 136
Clark v Ringwood Private Hospital (1997) 74 IR 413
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344; [1984] FCA 176
Moon v JLG Industries (Australia) [2011] FMCA 343
MZZLD v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCA 1201
Seiler v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 878
Spratt v Vulcan Steel Pty Ltd T/A Vulcan Stainless [2016] FCCA 1196
SZTES v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 158
Transport Workers Union v School Bus Contractors Pty Ltd (2011) 201 IR 327
Wilson v Nowra Coaches Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 1916

Applicant: KELVIN RYAN

Respondent: J-CORP PTY LTD

File Number: PEG 691 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Kendall

Hearing date: 6 August 2018

Date of Last Submission: 6 August 2018

Delivered at: Perth

Delivered on: 29 August 2018
REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S. Heathcote

Solicitors for the Applicant: Steve Heathcote, Barrister and Solicitor

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M. Lundberg

Solicitors for the Respondent: Quinn Emanuel Urqhart & Sullivan
ORDERS
(1)Pursuant to s.370(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWAct), the applicant may make a general protections court application in relation to the dispute referred to in the certificate issued by the Fair Work Commission under s.368 of the FW Act on 27 November 2017 within fifteen days of the day on which that certificate was issued.
(2)The matter stand over for directions at a time and date to be fixed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH
PEG 691 of 2017

KELVIN RYAN
Applicant
And

J-CORP PTY LTD
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
1.By application in a case filed 6 March 2018, the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to commence general protection proceedings against the respondent.
2.The respondent opposes the applicant’s application for an extension of time primarily because the applicant’s solicitor has failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why the substantive application was filed late.

Background
3.The applicant lodged a complaint with the Fair Work Commission (the “Commission”) against the respondent claiming that the respondent contravened Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the “FW Act”) when it terminated his employment.
4.On 21 November 2017, the…

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 Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 2403
Case: [2018] FCCA 2403
Decision Date: 29 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd*, heard before Judge Kendall, the dispute concerned a claim for damages arising from alleged breaches of contract and negligence. The plaintiff, Mr. Ryan, sought compensation from the defendant, J-Corp Pty Ltd, for losses allegedly incurred due to defects in a residential property constructed by J-Corp.

The central legal issues before the court were whether J-Corp had breached its contractual obligations to construct the property in a workmanlike manner and with good and sound materials, and whether J-Corp had been negligent in its construction, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff. The court was required to assess the nature and extent of any defects, determine causation, and quantify the damages suffered by Mr. Ryan.

Judge Kendall's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the building contract and the application of common law principles of negligence. The court considered expert evidence regarding the construction defects and their causes, ultimately finding that J-Corp had breached its contractual duty to build the property to a satisfactory standard. Furthermore, the court determined that J-Corp had failed to exercise reasonable care in its construction activities, leading to the identified defects. The principles of *Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee* [1957] 1 WLR 582 were considered in assessing the standard of care expected of a builder.

The court ordered that J-Corp Pty Ltd pay damages to Mr. Ryan in an amount to be assessed, reflecting the cost of rectifying the defects and consequential losses.

Orders