Tham v Conrock Group Pty Ltd

[2015] FCCA 3305

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THAM v CONROCK GROUP PTY LTD [2015] FCCA 3305

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Incomplete application – dismissed.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Applicant: CHARLES THAM

Respondent: CONROCK GROUP PTY LTD

File Number: MLG 890 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 9 December 2015

Date of Last Submission: 9 December 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 9 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: In Person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Segman (director)

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 27 April 2015 be dismissed.

2. Reasons be taken out and placed on the Court file.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 890 of 2015

CHARLES THAM

Applicant

And

CONROCK GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. The application before the Court today is one filed by the applicant, Mr Tham, on 27 April 2015.  It is a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Fair Work Division. Conrock Group Pty Ltd is the respondent.  This matter comes on before me today with something of a convoluted history. 

2. Mr Segman appears today as director for the respondent company.  The applicant appears in person. I have some sympathy for him. English is not his first language. He is assisted by an interpreter. 

3. When the application was first before me there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. The application was therefore dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001. 

4. The applicant then applied for the reinstatement of his application of 27 April 2015. Leave was granted for him to reinstate that application. It was duly served on Mr Segman’s company. It has now eventuated that, although not disclosed necessarily in Mr Tham’s application, on 18 February 2015, my colleague, Judge O’Sullivan, summarily dismissed a previous application by Mr Tham against Conrock Structural Pty Ltd pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001. This application being in respect of alleged entitlements from his employment with that company. It has now become apparent that apparently aggrieved by Judge O’Sullivan’s decisions and orders for summary dismissal, Mr Tham has simply filed a fresh application in this Court rather than seeking that his grievances be dealt with by way of an appeal or a review.  I do not criticise him because English is not his first language and the system can perhaps be confusing. Given these difficulties of language it is an unfortunate situation.

5. Sadly, Mr Tham himself has been put to a deal of trouble and emotional difficulties in attempting to, again, prosecute his application.  And Mr Segman himself has been put to some real difficulties in filing responses and coming to Court today.  However, it is irresistible, given that the matter has been dealt with and disposed of by my colleague that the application filed 27 April 2015 is incompetent and must be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire

Date: 16 December 2015