Vinaccia v Marriott Support Services - [2013] FCA 309

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vinaccia v Marriott Support Services [2013] FCA 309

Citation: Vinaccia v Marriott Support Services [2013] FCA 309

Parties: CARMELLO VINACCIA v MARRIOTT SUPPORT SERVICES (A.C.N. 094 426 061)

File number: VID 285 of 2011

Judge: TRACEY J

Date of judgment: 10 April 2013

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by litigation representative for approval of settlement – applicant intellectually disabled – consideration of relevant requirements – settlement approved.

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – ss 369, 371
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – rr 9.70, 9.71

Cases cited: Gillespie v Alperstein [1964] VR 749 – cited
Hickey v Public Advocate (Victoria) [2012] FCA 1203 – cited
Re Barbour’s Settlement; National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barbour [1974] 1 All ER 1188 – considered, applied
Wade v State of Victoria(No 2) [2012] FCA 1080 – cited

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 16

Solicitor for the Applicant: AED Legal Group

Solicitor for the Respondent: Middletons

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 285 of 2011

BETWEEN:
CARMELLO VINACCIA
Applicant

AND:
MARRIOTT SUPPORT SERVICES (A.C.N. 094 426 061)
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 APRIL 2013

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to Rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the settlement between the parties recorded in the deed of release exhibited as KW-1 to the affidavit of Ms Kairstien Wilson sworn on 3 April 2013 be approved.
2.The affidavit of Kairstien Wilson sworn on 3 April 2013 and the exhibits thereto be treated as confidential and be placed in a sealed envelope marked “NOT TO BE OPENED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF A JUDGE OF THIS COURT.”

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 285 of 2011

BETWEEN:
CARMELLO VINACCIA
Applicant

AND:
MARRIOTT SUPPORT SERVICES (A.C.N. 094 426 061)
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

10 APRIL 2013

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Carmello Vinaccia suffers from an intellectual disability, obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety. He is 39 years old.
From 1991 Mr Vinaccia was employed by the respondent pursuant to a contract of employment. He performed his duties in a sheltered environment as a supported employee.
In July 2010 the respondent advised Mr Vinaccia that, as from 6 September 2010, his work hours would be reduced to two and a half days per week and that, from 30 June 2011, his paid employment would be terminated.
Mr Vinaccia commenced a proceeding in Fair Work Australia. He alleged that the respondent had dismissed him from employment in contravention of the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”). The respondent sought to justify its actions on the ground of economic necessity. Attempts by Fair Work Australia to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful. On 29 March 2011 Commissioner Blair issued a certificate…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vinaccia v Marriott Support Services and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FCA 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vinaccia v Marriott Support Services, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to approve a settlement agreement between the parties. The applicant, Carmello Vinaccia, is an intellectually disabled individual who had been employed by the respondent, Marriott Support Services, since 1991. The respondent had terminated the applicant's employment, and the applicant had commenced proceedings in Fair Work Australia, alleging that the termination was in contravention of the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was referred to the Federal Court of Australia, and a settlement agreement was reached between the parties.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the settlement was in the best interests of the applicant, and whether the court should approve the settlement agreement. The court considered the relevant legal requirements, including the opinions of the applicant's legal advisers and the independent lawyer's opinion that the settlement was in the applicant's best interests.

The court concluded that the settlement was in the best interests of the applicant, and that the opinions of the applicant's legal advisers and the independent lawyer should be given significant weight in making this determination. The court noted that the settlement would avoid a contested hearing, which would have involved complex factual issues and potentially caused the applicant further distress. The court also noted that the applicant had a basic understanding of the settlement terms and looked forward to moving on with his life.

The court approved the settlement agreement, and the terms of the agreement were ordered to be kept confidential. The settlement agreement was approved, and the matter was concluded.

Orders