Seidenspinner v City Organics - [2024] FedCFamC2G 150

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Seidenspinner v City Organics [2024] FedCFamC2G 150

File number(s): LNG 32 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 21 February 2024

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – review of Registrar’s decision – Registrar’s decision not to list adjournment request prior to the date of final hearing – application and adjournment of final hearing granted

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 2024 & 205

Cases cited: Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1034

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 28

Date of hearing: 20 February 2024

Place: Hobart

For the Applicant: The Applicant in person

For the Respondents: The Second Respondent in person
ORDERS

LNG 32 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
TIM SEIDENSPINNER

Applicant

AND:
CITY ORGANICS ABN 85 819 013 752

First Respondent

JACQUELINE MICHELLE STEPHENS TRADING AS CITY ORGANICS (ABN 85819013752)

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

21 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Proceeding for review of the decision not to list the application for adjournment prior to the hearing listed 23 February 2024 is granted.
2.The hearing listed before Registrar Hird on 23 February 2024 at 10:15AM (AEDT) is vacated.
3.The hearing referred to in Order 2 above is relisted to 17 April 2024 10:00AM (AEST) before Registrar Hird in Hobart in person, subject to the applicant participating by Microsoft Teams and any further directions.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE TAGLIERI:

This application in a proceeding filed 13 February 2024 was filed by the applicant in the substantive proceedings. He seeks review of a decision by a Registrar of 25 January 2024 to list the final hearing of his fair work claim on 23 February 2024 at 10:15AM (AEDT). I will refer to this date as "the final hearing". Further, he seeks to review the subsequent decision to list his request to adjourn that final hearing to the date of the final hearing.
As this is a review of decisions taken by a Registrar, the issue I am to decide is if the listing of the adjournment application for the same day as the final hearing should be determined prior to the final hearing. Further, if persuaded that the adjournment request should be decided prior to the final hearing, I should also decide if the adjournment should be granted and, if so, on what terms.
For the hearing of…

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 Seidenspinner v City Organics 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: [2024] FedCFamC2G 150
Decision Date: 21 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the Seidenspinner v City Organics case were Seidenspinner as the applicant and City Organics as the respondent. The dispute arose from a Registrar's decision not to list an adjournment request before the final hearing date. Seidenspinner sought a review of this decision and an adjournment of the final hearing. The matter was heard in the relevant court which granted the application and adjourned the final hearing.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Registrar's decision was correct and whether the application for an adjournment should be granted. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles governing the listing of adjournment requests and the appropriate circumstances under which a final hearing should be adjourned. The court also needed to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying the adjournment.

The court found that the Registrar's decision was not in line with the principles governing the listing of adjournment requests. It was determined that there were exceptional circumstances present that warranted the adjournment of the final hearing. The court emphasised the importance of fairness and the need to ensure that all parties have a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present their cases. Consequently, the application for the adjournment was granted, and the final hearing was rescheduled to a later date.

The court's final orders included granting the application for the adjournment and ordering that the final hearing be rescheduled to a date that allowed Seidenspinner sufficient time to prepare and present their case. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the need to consider the circumstances of each case when deciding on the listing of adjournment requests and the adjournment of final hearings.

Orders