Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd - [2010] WASC 105

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: SALDANHA -v- FUJITSU AUSTRALIA LTD [2010] WASC 105

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 11 MAY 2010

DELIVERED : 21 MAY 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 1515 of 2010

BETWEEN: MARINA SALDANHA
Applicant
AND
FUJITSU AUSTRALIA LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Application for a review order of magistrate's decision - Appeal instituted and heard against magistrate's decision - Substantial overlap between appeal grounds and grounds for review order - Reasons delivered dismissing appeal against decision of magistrate - Whether applicant should pursue any appeal against decision in appeal rather than review order

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36

Result:

Application for review order adjourned pending any appeal against decision dismissing appeal

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

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

Kirk v Industrial Commission of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re an Application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004; Ex parte Brecker [2007] WASC 151
Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501
Re Michelides; Ex parte Chin [2008] WASC 256
Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd [2010] WADC 43

BEECH J:

Introduction

On 14 April 2010 Ms Marina Saldanha filed an originating motion. The motion had two attachments. The motion itself did not identify the order sought. Attachment 1 is headed 'Grounds For Review Order'. It is clear from this attachment that the applicant seeks a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) against the decision of her Honour, Magistrate Boon SM, on 26 October 2009. The substance of her Honour's decision was to strike out a claim made by Ms Saldanha against the respondent, and to order the Ms Saldanha pay the respondent's costs.
This application was made ex parte, in accordance with O 56A r 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
At this hearing, being the first return of this application, Ms Saldanha informed me that she had appealed against the magistrate's decision and that the District Court had delivered reasons for decision dismissing the appeal. This gives rise to issues about:
(1)the relationship between the appeal and this application for a review order; and
(2)whether this application should be adjourned pending any appeal by Ms Saldanha against the decision in the District Court appeal.

Background

The background to the decision of Magistrate Boon is conveniently summarised by Wager DCJ in the District Court appeal: Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd [2010] WADC 43 [1] ‑ [11].
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…

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] WASC 105
Decision Date: 21 MAY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Saldanha, sought a review order of a magistrate's decision, which was subsequently appealed and heard by the court. The case involved the applicant's dismissal from employment and the subsequent administrative decisions related to that dismissal. The court was required to determine whether the applicant should pursue any appeal against the magistrate's decision in the appeal rather than through a review order. The central issue was whether the grounds for an appeal against the magistrate's decision substantially overlapped with the grounds for a review order, thereby rendering the review order application inappropriate.

The court considered the overlap between the grounds for the appeal and the review order. It was established that if the grounds for the appeal substantially overlapped with those for the review order, the applicant should pursue the appeal rather than a review order. The court found that the grounds for the appeal against the magistrate's decision indeed overlapped significantly with the grounds for the review order. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant should pursue any appeal against the magistrate's decision in the appeal rather than through a review order.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of administrative law, focusing on the efficiency and appropriateness of the legal process. By determining that the grounds for the appeal and the review order overlapped substantially, the court ensured that the applicant's legal remedies were pursued through the most effective and appropriate avenue. The decision provided clarity on the circumstances under which a review order application should be dismissed in favour of an appeal. Ultimately, the court dismissed the review order application, directing the applicant to pursue the appeal against the magistrate's decision.

Orders