Sharma, Sharon v State Rail Authority - [1998] FCA 552

SHARON SHARMA AND SHALLY PRASAD v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW
Nos. NI 5047 of 1995 and NI 1273 of 1996
FED No. 552/98
Number of pages - 9
Industrial Law - Termination of Employment

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

MADGWICK J

Industrial Law - Termination of Employment - review of decision of judicial registrar - estoppel - abuse of process - applicants dismissed from employment on ground of misconduct - applicants appealed to NSW Transport Appeal Board - dismissal confirmed - applicants appealed to employer as provided for by relevant legislation - appeal unsuccessful - applicants lodged applications before Court on ground that termination of employment was unlawful - whether applicants estopped from bringing applications before Court - State tribunal does not constitute alternative remedy - employees entitled to bring application in the Court - cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel not made out - hearing of applications may constitute abuse of process

Transport Appeal Boards Act 1980 (NSW)

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 170ED(4), s 170DE(1)

AWU-FIME Union v Qld Alumina (1995) 62 IR 385, refd

Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52, refd

Balog v Independent Commission against Corruption (1990) 169 CLR 625, refd

Fryarand Simpson v Systems Services Pty Ltd (1995) 130 ALR 168, refd

Houssein v Department of Industrial Relations & Technology (1982) 148 CLR 88, refd

Julius v Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 AC 214, applied

Morgan v Konway Express Pty Ltd (IRCA, unrep, Wilcox CJ, Ryan and Moore JJ, 6/12/96), refd

Nicholson v Heaven and Earth Gallery Pty Ltd (1994) 57 IR 50, refd

Schaale v Hoechst Australia Ltd (1993) 47 IR 249, refd

The Administration of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 170 CLR 353, applied

Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1992) 108 ALR 335, refd

Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) 138 ALR 129, refd

Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, applied

Ward v Williams (1956-1957) 92 CLR 426, refd

SYDNEY, 8 July 1997 (hearing), 25 May 1998 (decision)

#DATE 25:5:1998

Counsel for the Applicant: J Wallace

Solicitor for the Applicant: Lachlan Riches

Counsel for the Respondent: R Reitano

MADGWICK J

The applicants seek a review of a decision of a judicial registrar to dismiss their applications for relief at the threshold of the proceedings on the ground of estoppel.

Allegations of Misconduct

The applicants were employed by the respondent, the State Rail Authority of New South Wales ("the SRA"), as Revenue Protection Officers. Their main responsibility was to collect train fares and to account for those monies to the SRA.

On 29 May and 1 June 1995, Ms Prasad and Ms Sharma (along with some others) were each charged with breaches of the SRA's "code of conduct" in that they had collected cash fares from passengers but had failed to remit those fares to the SRA. This "code of conduct" seems to…

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 Sharma, Sharon v State Rail Authority 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: [1998] FCA 552
Decision Date: 25 MAY 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Sharon Sharma and Shally Prasad, both former Revenue Protection Officers employed by the State Rail Authority of New South Wales, sought a review of a judicial registrar's decision to dismiss their applications on the grounds of estoppel. The applicants were dismissed due to alleged breaches of the SRA's code of conduct, specifically for failing to remit collected cash fares to the SRA. After their dismissals were confirmed by the NSW Transport Appeal Board and the SRA, the applicants sought relief in the Industrial Relations Court, claiming their dismissals were unlawful. The central legal issues revolved around whether the applicants were estopped from bringing their claims before the Court due to the prior proceedings before the Board and whether the hearing of the applications would constitute an abuse of process.

The Court found that the applicants were not estopped from bringing their claims before the Court. The Court held that the Transport Appeal Board did not constitute an alternative remedy under the Termination of Employment Division of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth). Moreover, the Court found that neither cause of action estoppel nor issue estoppel was made out. The Court reasoned that the legal issues and remedies available before the Board and the Court were not identical, thus negating cause of action estoppel. Regarding issue estoppel, the Court held that the decision of the SRA on appeal from the Board was not a decision of a judicial tribunal for the purposes of issue estoppel. However, the Court also considered whether the hearing of the applications could constitute an abuse of process. The Court concluded that while the applicants had the choice of remedies and had chosen to pursue the Transport Appeals Board, the SRA's possible acquiescence in the applicants' efforts to litigate their grievances twice might have legal consequences. The matter was listed for further directions to explore these issues.

The Court's decision allowed the applicants' claims to proceed, emphasising the importance of applying the Act and Convention in a practical and commonsense manner while recognising the realities of commercial and industrial life. The Court also highlighted that ordinary considerations of abuse of process should apply, and exclusion of litigants on such grounds should be an extreme step.

Orders