Tetley v Goldmate Group Pty Ltd - [2020] FCA 913

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tetley v Goldmate Group Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 913

File number(s): NSD 667 of 2019

Judge(s): BROMWICH J

Date of judgment: 17 June 2020

Date of publication of reasons: 29 June 2020

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to adjourn – where Court will be required to decide between two competing accounts on at least one of the issues at trial – where a remote hearing will impede the ability to obtain instructions in a timely manner – application granted.

Cases cited:
Capic v Ford Motor Company [2020] FCA 486

Haiye Developments v The CBC [2020] NSWSC 732

JKC Australia LNG v CH2M Hill Companies Limited [2020] WASCA 38

Quirk v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (Remote Video Conferencing) [2020] FCA 664

Date of hearing: 17 June 2020

Registry: New South Wales

Division: Fair Work Division

National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 21

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms L Saunders

Solicitor for the Applicant: Danny King Legal

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B Rauf

Solicitor for the Respondents: People + Culture Strategies

ORDERS

NSD 667 of 2019

BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER JAMES TETLEY

Applicant

AND:
GOLDMATE GROUP PTY LTD

First Respondent

YUCHEN YANG

Second Respondent

BUYANG NI

Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMWICH J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 JUNE 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The oral application to adjourn the trial listed for 22, 23 and 24 June 2020 be granted.
2.The matter be listed for trial on either 7–9 September 2020 or 28–30 October 2020, depending on the outcome of an application in another proceeding.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION
Revised from transcript
BROMWICH J:

This is an employment dispute, involving, inter alia, alleged civil penalty contraventions. It is a case in which there will be no alternative, in parts at least, to the Court deciding whose account to believe, not just who to prefer as a matter of reliability or understanding of what was said.
On 19 December 2019, the trial of this matter was listed for hearing for three days commencing on 22 June 2020. The procedural timetable to prepare the case for trial was varied on 10 March 2020, upon the expectation that the trial would proceed as scheduled. Ten days later, on 20 March 2020, my associate emailed the parties to explore the possibilities for upcoming listings in light of developments with the COVID-19 pandemic. At that stage the technological possibilities appeared to be telephone or an online hearing using Microsoft Teams. The email identified the advantages of Microsoft Teams, including the ability for relevant participants to see each other. The email advised that the Court would be hosting the Microsoft Teams platform, which would be accessed by parties by an email link directing them to the interface on a webpage, so parties would need to have access to a stable Internet connection with a bandwidth of at least…

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 Tetley v Goldmate Group Pty 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: [2020] FCA 913
Decision Date: 17 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Tetley v Goldmate Group Pty Ltd was heard in a court in Australia, where the plaintiff, Tetley, sought an adjournment of the hearing against the defendant, Goldmate Group Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a contract and the performance of obligations under it. The court was required to decide on the appropriate timeline for the hearing and the potential implications of a remote hearing on the ability of the parties to obtain instructions.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included whether the circumstances warranted an adjournment and the potential impact of conducting the hearing remotely on the parties' ability to obtain instructions. The court needed to consider the principles governing adjournments and the practicalities of conducting a remote hearing, particularly in relation to the parties' ability to conduct their case effectively.

The court found that an adjournment was warranted due to the complexity of the issues and the potential for a remote hearing to impede the ability of the parties to obtain instructions in a timely manner. The court acknowledged that the parties would need to be able to conduct their case effectively and that a remote hearing could potentially hinder this. The court also considered the importance of the issues at stake and the need for the parties to have sufficient time to prepare their cases. As a result, the application for an adjournment was granted, and the hearing was rescheduled for a later date.

The court made an order granting the application for an adjournment and setting a new date for the hearing. The court emphasised the importance of the parties being able to conduct their cases effectively and the need for them to have sufficient time to prepare. The court also noted that the new date for the hearing would allow the parties to conduct their case in a manner that would be fair and just.

Orders