Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia v Simmon Consolidated Clothing Pty Ltd (ACN 068 692 115)

Case [2008] FCA 339

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia v Simmon Consolidated Clothing Pty Ltd (ACN 068 692 115) [2008] FCA 339

TEXTILE CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR UNION OF AUSTRALIA v SIMMON CONSOLIDATED CLOTHING PTY LTD (ACN 068 692 115)
VID 207 OF 2006

NORTH J
25 FEBRUARY 2008
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 207 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

TEXTILE CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND:

SIMMON CONSOLIDATED CLOTHING PTY LTD (ACN 068 692 115)
Respondent

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent is to pay the applicant the amount of $6000.

2.The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion in the sum of $1300.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 207 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

TEXTILE CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND:

SIMMON CONSOLIDATED CLOTHING PTY LTD (ACN 068 692 115)
Respondent

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE:

25 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Before the Court is a motion, notice of which was filed by the applicant, the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, against the respondent, Simmon Consolidated Clothing Pty Limited, on 13 February 2008.  The motion seeks judgment against the respondent in the sum of $6000 together with costs in the sum of $1300. 

  2. In support of the application for judgment is an affidavit of Elizabeth Mary McPherson, sworn 13 February 2008.  She deposes to the fact that in May 2006, mediation was conducted by a Registrar of the Court between the parties.  Mr Tran is a director of the respondent and attended the mediation on behalf of the respondent.  The parties made an agreement at that mediation which provided that the respondent would pay to the applicant $8000.  This payment was to be made in instalments of $2000 per month in June, July, August and September 2006.

  3. Mr Tran appeared on behalf of the company and did not dispute that such an agreement was made.  He also agreed that amounts were paid under the agreement totalling $2000 in September and October 2006.  Consequently, the amount of $6000 remains owing.  Mr Tran addressed some oral submissions to the Court.  These submissions did not go to liability under the agreement but rather argued that the union was unable to tell him what the legal requirements of his business were.  It seems that he suggested that if the union is unable to explain the law to him it is wrong that it is able to collect under the agreement.  This conclusion is unfounded.

  4. The relevant facts are clear and uncontested.  They give rise to a liability of the company in the amount claimed and I have no alternative but to give judgment as sought. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:       14 March 2008

Appearing for the Applicant: Mr C Haan (Solicitor)
Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater & Gordon
Appearing for the Respondent: Mr Tran (as Director of the Respondent Company)
Date of Hearing: 25 February 2008
Date of Judgment: 25 February 2008
Details
AGLC
Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia v Simmon Consolidated Clothing Pty Ltd (ACN 068 692 115) [2008] FCA 339
Case
[2008] FCA 339
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in this matter involved the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members, and Simmon Consolidated Clothing Pty Ltd. The union sought to enforce a decision made by an arbitrator which had been issued in their favour. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The union contended that the respondent had failed to comply with the arbitrator's decision and was seeking enforcement of that decision, as well as costs incurred in making the application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent was bound by the arbitrator's decision and whether the union was entitled to the sum awarded, along with costs. The court had to determine if the arbitration agreement between the parties was valid and binding, and if the respondent had indeed breached the terms of that agreement by failing to comply with the arbitrator's decision. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the union was entitled to the costs associated with enforcing the arbitrator's decision.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and that the respondent was indeed bound by the arbitrator's decision. The court noted that the respondent had failed to comply with the terms of that decision and thus was in breach of the agreement. The union's application for enforcement of the arbitrator's decision was granted. The court also ruled that the union was entitled to the costs associated with enforcing the decision, which were quantified at $1300. As a result, the respondent was ordered to pay the union $6000, as well as the costs of the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant the amount of $6000.

2. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion in the sum of $1300.

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

NORTH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: NORTH J

Full text does not contain this section.