Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd - [2010] WADC 43

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: SALDANHA -v- FUJITSU AUSTRALIA LTD [2010] WADC 43

CORAM: WAGER DCJ

HEARD: 19 FEBRUARY 2010

DELIVERED : 31 MARCH 2010

FILE NO/S: APP 88 of 2009

BETWEEN: MARINA SALDANHA
Appellant
AND
FUJITSU AUSTRALIA LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against Magistrate's order striking out minor case claim - Striking out based upon "abuse of courts process" - Whether splitting claim to comply with minor case legislation could be characterised as an abuse of the court's process

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935
Magistrates Court Act 2004
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Rules 2005

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms F A Stanton

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Respondent: McCallum Donovan Sweeney

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lee v St George Bank Ltd [2006] WASC 221
Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 6) [2004] FCA 1699
Wise & Anor v Proprietors of Strata Plan 21513 [2009] WADC 115

WAGER DCJ: Ms Saldanha commenced a minor case claim against her former employer Fujitsu Australia Ltd (Fujitsu) for unpaid salary ($770), an outstanding incentive payment ($730) and for compensation for being forced to work 40 hours per week instead of the contracted 37.5 hours per week between April 2001 and June 2003 ($8,400). The total claim for $9,900 was filed on 29 June 2009.
Fujitsu filed an application to strike out Ms Saldanha's claim supported by a detailed affidavit setting out the history of earlier proceedings and correspondence between Ms Saldanha and Fujitsu.
The history as set out in the affidavit is that Ms Saldanha had proceeded against Fujitsu in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission for compensation for working a 40‑hour week when she had been paid for a 37.5‑hour week over a period spanning 2001 to 2008. The Full Bench of the Industrial Appeal Court determined that the Industrial Relations Commission did not have jurisdiction to deal with Ms Saldanha's application. Following the Industrial Appeal Court's decision Ms Saldanha stated in open correspondence to Fujitsu's solicitors dated 15 April 2009:
"Re the matter regarding my claim for working in excess of 37.5 hours per week, I think it is best dealt with in the Magistrates Court. Thank you for informing me that I'm likely to have an order for costs made against me in favour of Fujitsu. However I wonder how that is possible given that I told you that I'm going to split my claims so that they are under $10,000 each, thus eliminating the need for lawyers."
Correspondence from Fujitsu's solicitors to Ms Saldanha in reply dated 5 May 2009 raised that a splitting of the claim into two or more actions to fit within the minor case jurisdiction limit would be an abuse of process. The correspondence also referred to the incentive claim…

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 Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd 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: [2010] WADC 43
Decision Date: 31 MARCH 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd, the plaintiff, Ms Saldanha, sought to appeal a magistrate's order that struck out her minor case claim against Fujitsu Australia Ltd. The magistrate's decision was based on the premise that splitting her claim to comply with minor case legislation could be characterised as an abuse of the court's process. The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate's decision to strike out the claim was correct and whether there was a denial of natural justice.

The court found that there is a strong presumption in favour of the correctness of a discretionary decision, and this decision should be affirmed unless the appellate court is satisfied that it is clearly wrong. The court noted that the magistrate had given reasons for her decision, and Ms Saldanha had not provided any grounds that support her appeal. The court held that the magistrate had not denied natural justice, and the appeal should be dismissed.

The court found that the magistrate's decision to strike out the claim was correct, and there was no denial of natural justice. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Fujitsu Australia Ltd. The court noted that the awarding of costs is a discretionary matter for the court, and the magistrate had set out that she was satisfied that the requirements of s 31(3)(a) and s 31(3)(b) of the Act had been met.

Therefore, the final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and costs were awarded to Fujitsu Australia Ltd. The court held that there was no denial of natural justice and that the magistrate's decision was correct. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Fujitsu Australia Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

There is a strong presumption in favour of the correctness of a discretionary decision and that decision should therefore be affirmed unless the appellate court is satisfied that it is clearly wrong (see Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621, Kitto J at 627; House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, Dixon, Evert and McTiernan JJ at 504 ‑ 505; Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513, Stephen J at 519). The awarding of costs is a discretionary matter for the court. Her Honour set out that she was satisfied that the requirements of s 31(3)(a) and s 31(3)(b) of the Act had been met and that costs should be awarded and gave reasons for her decision. There was no denial of natural justice. These paragraphs deal with the merits of the claim and Ms Saldanha's comments in relation to the matter generally. The paragraphs do not provide grounds that support Ms Saldanha's appeal. For the above reasons I conclude that there has not been a denial of natural justice and the appeal should be dismissed.