WATSON v Romlin Investments Pty Ltd - [2017] FCCA 1345

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WATSON v ROMLIN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

[2019] FCCA 1345

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – Adverse action – whether the applicant was dismissed or whether she resigned from her employment – whether the applicant was dismissed because of complaints she had made – whether statutory presumption rebutted.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009, ss.340(1), 341(1), 342(1), 351(1), 360, 361(1), 386(1)

Cases cited:
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500; (2012) 290 ALR 647; (2012) 86 ALJR 1044; (2012) 220 IR 445; [2012] HCA 32
General Motors-Holdens Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605; (1977) 51 ALJR 235
Khiani v Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010) 199 IR 281; [2010] FCA 1059
Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd (2005) 139 IR 457; [2005] FCA 247

Applicant:

WENDY WATSON

Respondent:

ROMLIN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 121 237 009) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ROMLIN FAMILY TRUST T/AS ALL GREEN NURSERY & GARDEN SUPPLIES (ABN 14 423 819 778)

File number:

MLG 1600 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Riley

Hearing dates:

10 and 11 April 2017

Date of last submission:

26 April 2017

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

21 June 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the applicant:

Maya Rozner

Solicitors for the applicant:

McDonald Murholme

Counsel for the respondent:

Mark Rinaldi

Solicitors for the respondent:

CCI Lawyers

ORDERS

The application filed on 27 July 2016 be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1600 of 2016

WENDY WATSON

Applicant

And

ROMLIN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 121 237 009) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ROMLIN FAMILY TRUST T/AS ALL GREEN NURSERY & GARDEN SUPPLIES (ABN 14 423 819 778)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application under the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The applicant alleged that:
a)the respondent took adverse action against her for reasons that included:
i)her age, in breach of s.351 of the Act; and
ii)her exercise of her workplace right pursuant to s.341(1)(c) of the Act to make complaints in relation to her employment; and
b)the adverse action consisted of actually or constructively dismissing her.
The respondent denied that it dismissed the applicant from her employment, or left her with no option but to resign. The respondent claimed that the applicant resigned of her own free will. In the alternative, the respondent denied that it dismissed the applicant for a prohibited reason.

Background

The applicant is 62 years old.
The respondent is a family company that operates a plant nursery and garden supplies business. The respondent company was established by Romeo and Linda Fragapane (“Ms Fragapane”). Their son, Samuel Fragapane (“Mr Fragapane”), became a manager of the business in 2010. He took over the role of general manager from his father in 2014. As general manager, Mr Fragapane was responsible for hiring and firing employees.
Mr Fragapane’s mother remains a director of the respondent. His sister, Emma Hughes (“Ms Hughes”), is the respondent’s dispatch team leader. His sister,…

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 WATSON v Romlin Investments Pty Ltd 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 1345
Decision Date: 21 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Watson v Romlin Investments Pty Ltd*, heard before Judge Riley in the Supreme Court of Queensland, the dispute concerned a claim for damages arising from alleged breaches of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct. The plaintiff, Mr Watson, sought to recover losses he contended were suffered as a result of the defendant, Romlin Investments Pty Ltd, failing to fulfil its contractual obligations and engaging in conduct that misled Mr Watson regarding the nature and prospects of an investment.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether Romlin Investments Pty Ltd had breached the terms of the agreement with Mr Watson, and whether its conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law*. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if representations made by the defendant about the investment's profitability and security were false or misleading, and if these representations caused Mr Watson to enter into the contract and subsequently suffer loss.

Judge Riley's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the contractual terms and the assessment of the representations made by Romlin Investments. The Court applied principles of contract law to ascertain the parties' intentions and obligations, and principles of consumer protection law to evaluate the conduct of the defendant. The Court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including documentary evidence and witness testimony, to determine whether the plaintiff had established the necessary elements for breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct, and crucially, whether a causal link existed between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's loss.

The Court found that Romlin Investments Pty Ltd had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and had breached its contractual obligations. Consequently, judgment was entered in favour of Mr Watson, with damages awarded to compensate him for the losses he sustained.

Orders