Wats v Infosys Technologies Limited Australia - [2017] FCCA 866

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WATS v INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AUSTRALIA

[2017] FCCA 866

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary judgment by Respondent pursuant to s.17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and r.13.10(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – in his substantive case the Applicant alleges contravention of s.340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) on the basis that he is entitled to the benefit of workplace law, being the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (“the SGA Act”) – held that because of the interaction between the SGA Act, the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations 1993 (Cth), the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999 (Cth) (“the SSIA Act”), including sch. 31 to the SSIA Act which contains an agreement between India and Australia, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the SGA Act – held that the Applicant did not have a workplace right within the meaning of s.341 of the Act – held that the Applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding – application for summary judgment granted.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.12, 340, 341

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A(2)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.10(a)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.31A
Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999 (Cth), s.5, sch.31, arts.1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth), ss.19, 27
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations 1993 (Cth), regs.2, 7AC

Cases cited:

Adnunat Pty Ltd v ITW Construction Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 499
Gonzalez-Barbosa v Go To Court Franchising Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] FCCA 361
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd & Ors [2008] FCAFC 60

Upaid Systems Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2016] FCAFC 158

Pearce DC and Geddes RS, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (7^th ed, 2011)

Applicant:

AMIT WATS

Respondent:

INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AUSTRALIA

File Number:

MLG 540 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Jones

Hearing date:

10 April 2017

Date of Last Submission:

10 April 2017

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

1 May 2017

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr O’Grady, QC, and Mr Howard

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz Lawyers

ORDERS

The Application filed 16 March 2017 be summarily dismissed pursuant to s.17A(2) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and r.13.10(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The Undertaking to the Court filed by the Respondent on 21 March 2017 be discharged.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 540 of 2017

AMIT WATS

Applicant

And

INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AUSTRALIA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application by the Respondent for summary judgment of an application by the Applicant seeking relief for alleged contravention of s.340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”).
Section 17A(2) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) (“the FCC…

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 Wats v Infosys Technologies Limited Australia 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: [2017] FCCA 866
Decision Date: 1 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Wats v Infosys Technologies Limited Australia*, the applicant, Mr Wats, brought proceedings against the respondent, Infosys Technologies Limited Australia, alleging unfair dismissal. The dispute concerned whether Mr Wats's employment was terminated in circumstances that constituted a harsh, unjust, or unreasonable dismissal under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the dismissal of Mr Wats by Infosys Technologies Limited Australia was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. This required the court to consider the reasons for the dismissal, the manner in which it was carried out, and the impact of the dismissal on Mr Wats.

Judge Jones found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court reasoned that Infosys Technologies Limited Australia had a valid reason for the dismissal, related to Mr Wats's performance and conduct. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that the process followed by the employer was procedurally fair, providing Mr Wats with opportunities to respond to concerns raised about his employment. The court applied the principles established in the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) regarding the assessment of unfair dismissal claims, focusing on the objective reasonableness of the employer's actions.

The application for relief was dismissed.

Orders