Transport Workers' Union v Bentley

Case [2001] FCA 671

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Transport Workers' Union v Bentley [2001] FCA 671

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings – forum non conveniens -  contest between two Australian courts exercising jurisdiction under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – amount of claim relatively small - applicable principles

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 178, 179A

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 applied

Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 applied
Muller v Fencott (1981) 53 FLR 184 referred to
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 referred to
Pegasus Leasing v Balescope P/L (1994) 63 SASR 51 referred to
ZP v PS (1994) 181 CLR 639 referred to
CSR v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 at 390 referred to
Anglo-Australian Foods Ltd v Von Planta, P.V. & Ors (1988) 20 FCR 32 referred to
Korn v Paisley Robertson Pty Ltd (1995) 59 FCR 251 referred to
Dudinski v Kellow and Ors [1999] FCA 390 referred to
English v Ozbanski [2000] FCA 1479 referred to
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (2001) ATPR ¶41-794 applied
Down to Earth Springwater Pty Ltd and Ors v State Bank of New South Wales (1991) 31 FCR 81 referred to
Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd v PRC Inc [1993] FCA 458 referred to
Vision Systems Ltd v Cincom Systems of Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 120 referred to

TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA and DESMOND GEORGE MUIR v ARTHUR BENJAMIN BENTLEY and JOAN MARY BENTLEY

V939 of 2000

WEINBERG J
6 JUNE 2001
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V939  OF 2000

BETWEEN:

TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST APPLICANT

DESMOND GEORGE MUIR
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

ARTHUR BENJAMIN BENTLEY
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOAN MARY BENTLEY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WEINBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for a stay of proceedings be refused.

2.The matter be listed for directions on a date to be fixed.

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

V939  OF 2000

BETWEEN:

TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST APPLICANT

DESMOND GEORGE MUIR
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

ARTHUR BENJAMIN BENTLEY
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOAN MARY BENTLEY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WEINBERG J

DATE:

6 JUNE 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

  1. This is an application pursuant to ss 178 and 179A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”). It concerns relief claimed by the first applicant, the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (“the TWU”) on behalf of the second applicant, Mr Muir, in respect of an alleged underpayment of both overtime rates and meal allowance for the period 1 March 1993 until 27 June 1997. The statement of claim particularises the amounts which are said to be owed by the respondents.

  2. The claim is for the recovery of the alleged underpayment in breach of the

Continue reading Transport Workers' Union v Bentley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Transport Workers' Union v Bentley [2001] FCA 671
Case
[2001] FCA 671
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Transport Workers' Union v Bentley, the matter was brought before the court by the Transport Workers' Union against Bentley. The dispute centred on the alleged underpayment of wages by Bentley to employees, which the Union sought to address. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Union argued that Bentley had failed to comply with the terms of the Transport Workers’ (Oil Agents/Contractors) Award 1981, resulting in underpayments to employees. Bentley, on the other hand, sought to have the case dismissed and argued for a stay of proceedings, claiming that the matter should be heard in a state court rather than the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Federal Court should exercise its jurisdiction over the matter or if it should decline jurisdiction in favour of a state court, considering the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court also needed to determine whether the claim raised substantial issues that warranted the Federal Court's attention and whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant declining the Court's jurisdiction.

In its reasoning, the court referred to previous cases, including Johnson Tiles, Oceanic Sun, and Voth, to establish the principles governing the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court found that the Federal Court's jurisdiction had been properly invoked and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a decline in jurisdiction. Additionally, the court considered that the claim raised significant legal and factual questions arising from the operation of a federal statute, which the Federal Court was better suited to address than a state court. The court also expressed concern that staying the proceedings might result in the claim becoming time-barred, complicating the applicants' ability to pursue their case. Consequently, the court refused the application for a stay of proceedings.

In light of the court's decision, it ordered that the application for a stay of proceedings be refused and that the matter be listed for directions on a date to be fixed. This decision ensures that the case will proceed in the Federal Court, allowing the court to address the substantial claims made by the Transport Workers' Union against Bentley.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a stay of proceedings be refused.

2. The matter be listed for directions on a date to be fixed.

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

WEINBERG J (dissent)
In response to the factors identified by the respondents as warranting a stay, it was submitted that there were countervailing factors which favoured this matter remaining in this Court. It was noted, for example, that on occasion the Court had sat in regional locations. This had been done in order to save the parties’ costs and to avoid unduly inconveniencing a large number of witnesses. Conclusions In my view, the principles governing the doctrine of forum non conveniens are correctly stated by the Full Court in Johnson Tiles, in the passage to which I have referred. That decision is in any event binding upon me. It follows that the views expressed by Deane J in Oceanic Sun, as endorsed by the majority in Voth, represent the approach which must be taken when dealing with the present application for a stay. That is so notwithstanding the fact that Oceanic Sun and Voth both arose in the context of a contest between Australian courts and foreign courts. The jurisdiction of this Court having been properly invoked, it would require exceptional circumstances for that jurisdiction to be declined. I am not persuaded that this Court is a “clearly inappropriate forum” for the determination of the present application. That of itself is sufficient to refuse the application for a stay. However, even if I am wrong in applying that test, and the “more appropriate forum” test is correct, I would still refuse the application. It must be remembered that the claim brought by the applicants raises issues, both factual and legal, which arise out of the operation of a federal statute. It is likely that questions will arise as to the proper interpretation of the Transport Workers’ (Oil Agents/Contractors) Award 1981. This Court routinely deals with such questions and is therefore more suited to resolving them than is a State court, albeit one which is described in the Act as a “court of competent jurisdiction.” I am also concerned that the applicants may find some aspects of their claim time barred in the event that I order the present proceeding to be stayed and they are obliged to commence fresh proceedings. It is by no means clear that the limitation period set out in s 178(7) of the Act can be waived, notwithstanding the respondents’ willingness to proffer an undertaking not to take the limitation point. I am mindful of the reasoning of Beaumont J in Korn, and of the need to ensure that the time of this Court is not taken up unduly by the hearing of relatively small claims which do not raise any question of principle and turn largely upon their own facts. However, a claim for $45,180.76 is a substantial claim in the context of an alleged underpayment under s 178 of the Act. There is little doubt that it represents a substantial sum to the second applicant. I appreciate that in English Carr J considered that a claim for $5656.61 was so small as to warrant the application being stayed. I have no doubt that his Honour was correct in taking that course. However, I do not regard the present claim as being relevantly comparable.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.