Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd

Taylor v Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd

Case [2019] FCCA 1751 25 June 2019

Statutory Construction

Employment Law

Civil Procedure

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAYLOR v VIVACITY ENGINEERING PTY LTD

[2019] FCCA 1751

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – Federal jurisdiction – applicant commenced proceeding in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for family provision order under s.59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (family provision proceeding) – applicant then commenced proceeding (FW Act proceeding) in the Federal Circuit Court (Court) under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) claiming relief for contraventions of s.44(1) of the FW Act and damages for termination of employment contract without reasonable notice – whether the claims the applicant makes in the family provision proceeding and in the FW Act proceeding arise out of the same substratum of facts and, for that reason, constitute a single “matter” over which the Court has jurisdiction - claims constitute one “matter” – whether assuming the claims made in the FW Act proceeding and in the family provision proceeding constitute one “matter” the Court has a discretion whether to exercise that jurisdiction – Court has no discretion not to exercise jurisdiction but has power to stay part of proceeding that consists of the claims made in the family provision proceeding.

Legislation:

Australian Constitution, ss.75, 76, 77
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.12, 16, 44, 58, 61(3), 90, 117, 539, 540, 542, 543, 545, 566
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), ss.7, 9
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.22, 39
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.7.01
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss.39(2), 79
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s.5
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss.3, 58, 59, 60(2), 65(1)

Cases cited:

Andrew v Andrew [2012] NSWCA 308
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1; 204 CLR 559
Blendell v Byrne & Ors; The Estate of Noeline Joan Blendell [2019] NSWSC 583
Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17
Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21
Maynard v Maynard [2018] NSWSC 1961
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457
Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156
Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27; 198 CLR 511
Rizeq v Western Australia [2017] HCA 23
Sarina & Anor v O'Shannassy [2019] FCCA 732
Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
Smith v Smith (1986) 161 CLR 217
Suzlon Energy Ltd v Bangad (No.3) [2012] FCA 123
Van Wyk v Sparks [2007] FamCA 495
Vidler v Ivimey [2013] NSWSC 1605
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191

Applicant:

PETER ANDREW TAYLOR

Respondent:

VIVACITY ENGINEERING PTY LTD

File Number:

SYG 3214 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Manousaridis

Hearing date:

27 March 2019

Date of Last Submission:

30 April 2019

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

25 June 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr T Kane

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Argyle Lawyers Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr M Seck

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.

Continue reading Taylor v Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd [2019] FCCA 1751
Case: [2019] FCCA 1751
Decision Date: 25 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Taylor v Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd*, the applicant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking a family provision order under section 59 of the *Succession Act 2006* (NSW). Subsequently, the applicant initiated a separate proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court, alleging contraventions of section 44(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and claiming damages for termination of employment without reasonable notice. The central dispute concerned whether these two sets of claims constituted a single "matter" for the purposes of the Federal Circuit Court's jurisdiction.

The Federal Circuit Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it had to ascertain whether the claims made in the family provision proceeding and the Fair Work Act proceeding arose from the same factual basis, thereby constituting a single "matter" over which the Court possessed jurisdiction. Secondly, assuming such a single "matter" existed, the Court needed to decide whether it had a discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that the claims in both proceedings did indeed arise from the same substratum of facts, thus constituting a single "matter" within its jurisdiction. Regarding the exercise of jurisdiction, the Court held that it did not possess a discretion to refuse to exercise jurisdiction over the entirety of the matter. However, it did have the power to stay the part of the proceeding that comprised the claims made in the family provision proceeding.

Orders