FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Total Active Placement Pty Ltd (No 1) [2019] FCA 1203
File number: ACD 30 of 2019 Judge: GRIFFITHS J Date of judgment: 2 August 2019 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – corporate respondent – interlocutory application for dispensation of the requirement that corporations be represented by a lawyer – dispensation granted Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 4.01(2)
Cases cited: Enviro Pak Pty Ltd v New Horticulture Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 306 Date of hearing: On the papers Date of last submissions: 1 August 2019 Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: Fair Work Division National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr D Krcelj, a director of the first respondent, appeared on its behalf ORDERS
ACD 30 of 2019 BETWEEN: HARPREET SINGH
Applicant
AND: TOTAL ACTIVE PLACEMENT PTY LTD
First Respondent
PUBGAS COUNTRY AND COAST PTY LTD
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 AUGUST 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 1.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) dispensation is granted to the first respondent from compliance with r 4.01(2), such that Mr Damir Krcelj may appear in the proceeding on behalf of the first respondent.
2.The material provided by the first respondent in support of its interlocutory application dated 6 June 2019 remain confidential under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) on the basis that the interests of justice so require. No person is to have access to the material without the Court’s leave.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRIFFITHS J:
By an interlocutory application dated 6 June 2019 the first respondent, which is a corporation, seeks the Court’s leave to be given dispensation from compliance with r 4.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (2011 FCRs). This rule requires a corporation to be represented by a lawyer. The Court indicated that it would determine the matter on the papers and take into account confidential material provided by the first respondent in support of its interlocutory application. The Court is satisfied that the material is confidential, relating as it does to the state of health of one of the company’s directors, as well as being sensitive financial information. The Court will make an appropriate order regarding that material.
By way of general background, the proceedings involve a claim by the applicant that he was dismissed by the first respondent in contravention of Pt 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). He seeks orders for compensation and damages, reinstatement of his employment and a formal apology. The applicant claims that he found employment with a company called Pubgas Country and Coast Pty Ltd (the second respondent, who has not yet been served) through the first respondent. He says that his work included driving heavy trucks and delivering…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Total Active Placement Pty Ltd (No 1) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 1203
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had made out a prima facie case for the granting of dispensation and, if so, whether the interests of justice required the material provided in support of the application to be treated as confidential. The court considered the respondent's application under Rule 1.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 and the principles of justice and fairness. The respondent argued that it had an insufficient budget to engage a lawyer and that Mr Krcelj, who had relevant experience and qualifications, could adequately represent its interests. The applicant opposed the application on the basis that the respondent's financial position did not preclude it from engaging a lawyer and that there was no justification for departing from the rule requiring corporate respondents to be represented by a lawyer.
The court found that the respondent had demonstrated a prima facie case for the granting of dispensation. It noted that the respondent had an insufficient budget to engage a lawyer and that Mr Krcelj had the requisite experience and qualifications to represent the respondent. The court also found that the interests of justice required the material provided in support of the application to be treated as confidential. The court made orders granting the respondent dispensation from the requirement to be represented by a lawyer and treating the material provided in support of the application as confidential.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to r 1.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) dispensation is granted to the first respondent from compliance with r 4.01(2), such that Mr Damir Krcelj may appear in the proceeding on behalf of the first respondent.
2. The material provided by the first respondent in support of its interlocutory application dated 6 June 2019 remain confidential under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) on the basis that the interests of justice so require. No person is to have access to the material without the Court’s leave.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.