Tucker v Broderick

Case [2022] FCAFC 174

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tucker v Broderick [2022] FCAFC 174

Appeal from: Tucker v Broderick [2021] FCA 1492
File number: VID 775 of 2021
Judgment of: BROMBERG, BROMWICH AND MCEVOY JJ
Date of judgment: 28 October 2022
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS – appeal from orders summarily dismissing proceeding pursuant to r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – primary judge determined that claims in the Federal Court were plainly founded on an issue already pleaded and resolved in the Supreme Court of Victoria and that the causes of action pleaded had merged in the judgment of the Supreme Court – cause of action estoppel – proceeding determined to be an abuse of process which sought to vex the respondents with the same claim – primary judge found appellant’s claim based on the Victorian Model Litigant Guidelines was hopeless as no relevant cause of action – appellant makes no challenge to key aspect of primary judge’s finding that the proceeding constitutes an abuse of process – primary judge adequately explained findings – appeal had no prospect of success – appeal dismissed.
Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 50, 546, 570(2)(a), 570(2)(b)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 51A, 52

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39(2)

Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic) s 5

Public Administration Act 2004 (Vic) ss 8(b), 20(3), 20(3)(c)

Cases cited:

Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334; [1999] HCA 9

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; [206] HCA 27

Boensch v Pascoe (2019) 268 CLR 593; [2019] HCA 49

Clayton v Bant (2020) 272 CLR 1; [2020] HCA 44

Comaz (Aust) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2015) 101 ATR 339; [2015] VSC 294

Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; (1979) FLC 90-716

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

North West Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2017] VSC 726

Oswal v Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (2011) 85 ACSR 531; [2011] FCAFC 117

Perkins v County Court of Victoria (2000) 2 VR 246; [2000] VSCA 171

R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55

Razzy Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2021] VSC 409

Stoker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 449

Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28

Tucker v Broderick [2021] FCA 1492

Tucker v State of Victoria [2018] VSC 389

Tucker v State of Victoria [2019] VSC 420

Tucker v State of Victoria [2021] VSCA 120

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48

Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 50
Date of hearing: 5 August 2022
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Dober

Continue reading Tucker v Broderick

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tucker v Broderick [2022] FCAFC 174
Case
[2022] FCAFC 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tucker v Broderick, the appellant sought to challenge orders made by the primary judge, which had summarily dismissed a proceeding. The dispute arose from an attempt by the appellant to bring claims in the Federal Court that had previously been considered and resolved in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issues before the court were whether the claims in the Federal Court were barred by cause of action estoppel, and whether the proceeding constituted an abuse of process.

The court was required to determine if the claims raised in the Federal Court were essentially the same as those previously considered and resolved in the Supreme Court, and whether the Federal Court proceeding was an abuse of process. The primary judge found that the claims had indeed been resolved in the Supreme Court and, therefore, were subject to cause of action estoppel. Additionally, the primary judge held that the proceeding in the Federal Court was an abuse of process, as it sought to vex the respondents with the same claims that had already been adjudicated.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that once a cause of action has been pleaded and determined, it cannot be relitigated in another proceeding. The court found that the appellant's claims in the Federal Court were plainly founded on issues that had been previously pleaded and resolved in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Federal Court proceeding was an abuse of process, as it sought to re-litigate claims that had already been decided. The primary judge's findings were adequately explained and well-grounded in legal principles.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the principle of cause of action estoppel and the prohibition against abusing the process of the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondents on an indemnity basis.

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

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.