Vasco v Rogers

[2014] FCA 278

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vasco v Rogers [2014] FCA 278

Citation:	Vasco v Rogers [2014] FCA 278
Parties:	JUAN FERNANDO RAMIREZ VASCO v GEOFF ROGERS and WORK ZONE PTY LTD
File number(s):	WAD 356 of 2013
Judge(s):	SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:	13 March 2014
Date of hearing:	13 March 2014
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	7
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Ms J Knoth
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	HLS Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 356 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JUAN FERNANDO RAMIREZ VASCO
Appellant

AND:

GEOFF ROGERS
First Respondent

WORK ZONE PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 MARCH 2014
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.By 4.00 pm on 14 March 2014, the second respondent is to provide to the appellant’s pro bono lawyer the last known address of the first respondent.

2.Service is to be affected on the first respondent by the appellant, within 7 days of compliance with Order 1, posting to the first respondent at his last known address a copy of the notice of appeal and these orders.

3.By 4.00 pm on 17 March 2014, the appellant and the second respondent provide my associate with available dates to attend mediation.

4.The parties attend mediation at a date to be fixed.

5.The matter be adjourned to 9.30 am on 14 April 2014 for further directions.

6.Costs reserved.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 356 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JUAN FERNANDO RAMIREZ VASCO
Appellant

AND:

GEOFF ROGERS
First Respondent

WORK ZONE PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	13 MARCH 2014
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by Mr Vasco has been referred to me for case management.  The Court has previously authorised pro bono assistance for Mr Vasco.  However, Mr Vasco’s pro bono lawyer was, through no fault of his own, unable to attend this hearing.

2. Mr Vasco’s appeal, which is against a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, was instituted in this Court on 20 September 2013.  The Federal Circuit Court judgment was in respect of an application made by Mr Vasco, dated 18 July 2013, bringing a claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) alleging dismissal in contravention of a general protection provision. The first listing date for the application was 2 September 2013. On that date, Mr Vasco did not appear before the Federal Circuit Court, and the primary judge summarily dismissed the application pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules (Cth).

3. It was from that judgment that Mr Vasco appealed. The matter came before me at a callover at which Mr Vasco, for whom English is a second language, appeared for himself. On the face of the documents, it appeared to me that there may be a prospect of an alternative remedy being available to Mr Vasco in the Federal Circuit Court because his application was dismissed in his absence. There appeared to be some prospect of him being able to apply to the Federal Circuit Court to set aside the judgment under rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules. On that basis, I removed Mr Vasco’s appeal from the callover, and made a referral for Mr Vasco to be provided with pro bono assistance in relation to whether an application in the Federal Circuit Court should be pursued and, if necessary, exhausted, before any further steps were taken in relation to the appeal. I understand that the process is still in progress.

4. However, Mr Vasco advised me from the bar table that there has never been a face‑to‑face mediation with the respondents in relation to his allegations arising from the circumstances of the termination of his employment.  What I propose to do, in an effort to bring an early resolution to this matter, is to order that the parties attempt to mediate this matter.

5. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful, it will be a matter for Mr Vasco’s pro bono lawyer to advise Mr Vasco whether to proceed with an application to set aside the judgment in the Federal Circuit Court or to continue with this appeal - which would then need to be treated as an application for leave to appeal.

6. In the event that the matter does not settle, and if Mr Vasco, on advice, elects to proceed in the Federal Circuit Court, then this Court would expect that Mr Vasco would either discontinue this appeal, or perhaps have it dismissed by way of consent.

7. I will adjourn this matter to a further directions hearing after the mediation.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis.

Associate:

Dated:       25 March 2014