Wang v Purpose Pty Ltd

[2011] FCA 381

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wang v Purpose Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 381

Citation:	Wang v Purpose Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 381
Appeal from:	Application for Leave to Appeal: Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (oral decision)
Parties:	YUN FU WANG v PURPOSE PTY LTD and ROBERT MURPHY
File number:	NSD 256 of 2011
Judge:	NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment:	15 April 2011
Date of hearing:	14 April 2011
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	13
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Mr CE Dezarnaulds of Peter R Murphy & Co Solicitors

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 256 of 2011

BETWEEN:

YUN FU WANG
Applicant

AND:

PURPOSE PTY LTD
First Respondent

ROBERT MURPHY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	NICHOLAS J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 APRIL 2011
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the application.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 256 of 2011

BETWEEN:

YUN FU WANG
Applicant

AND:

PURPOSE PTY LTD
First Respondent

ROBERT MURPHY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	NICHOLAS J
DATE:	15 APRIL 2011
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate (Barnes FM) given on 16 February 2011 whereby her Honour dismissed a proceeding brought by the applicant against the respondents.  The first respondent is the applicant’s former employer. The second respondent is a director of the first respondent.  The applicant is self-represented.  At the hearing before me he was assisted by an interpreter. 

2. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of his application for leave to appeal.  It contains a great deal of irrelevant matter and is largely incoherent.  Nevertheless, I have read the affidavit and listened to the applicant’s submissions with a view to understanding whether the proposed appeal has any prospects of success.  In my view it has none. 

3. The proceeding commenced by the applicant against the respondents in the Federal Magistrates Court appears to have concerned an accident suffered by the applicant in August 2000 at a time when he was employed by the first respondent and the subsequent termination of his employment in January 2001. 

4. The history of the dispute giving rise to the proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court is lengthy.  The second respondent made an affidavit which provides an outline of what has occurred since the applicant suffered his injuries.  My account of the history is based upon that outline as well as documents which were attached to the applicant’s affidavit. 

5. On 9 August 2000, while working for the first respondent, the applicant had an accident and sustained injuries.  His employment was terminated…