Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd (No.2) - [2011] FMCA 675

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WEERASINGHE v PRISM GRAFIX PTY LTD (No.2)

[2011] FMCA 675

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Unlawful termination – recourse to competent administrative authority – whether employee terminated because of recourse to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.3 and 42
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.1.03
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, Subclass 456 and 457
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s.659(2)(e), 663(1), 665(1)(a) and (c)

Buckingham v KSN EngineeringPty Ltd & Anor (2008) 177 IR 427; [2008] FMCA 546
De La Espriella-Velasco v The Queen (2006) 197 FLR 125 [2006] WASCA 31
Hayward v Rohd Four Pty Ltd (2008) 177 IR 212; [2008] FMCA 1490
Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd (2009) 186 IR 330; [2009] FMCA 728

K Laster & VL Taylor, Interpreters and the Legal System (Sydney: Federation Press, 1994)

Applicant:

ANTONEY SANTHA TISSA WEERASINGHE

Respondent:

PRISM GRAFIX PTY LTD

File Number:

PEG 15 of 2009

Judgment of:

Lucev FM

Hearing dates:

30 June, 1 July, 19 and 20 October 2009

Date of Last Submission:

20 October 2009

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

16 September 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr N. Ellery

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr S. Heathcote

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Downings Legal

ORDERS

That the application be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 15 of 2009

ANTONEY SANTHA TISSA WEERASINGHE

Applicant

And

PRISM GRAFIX PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This matter involves a claim of unlawful termination of employment. The applicant, Antoney Santha Tissa Weerasinghe,[1] a Sri Lankan national, claims that the respondent, Prism Grafix Pty Ltd,[2] a print finishing business, contravened s.659(2)(e) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)[3] when terminating his employment. Mr Weerasinghe seeks an order:
a)imposing a penalty on Prism Grafix; and
b)for compensation for lost wages.[4]
[1] “Mr Weerasinghe”.
[2] “Prism Grafix”.
[3] “WR Act”.
[4] Pursuant to ss.663(1) and 665(1)(a) and (c) of the WR Act.
In Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd[5] this Court held that Mr Weerasinghe had had recourse to a competent administrative authority by asking an officer of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship,[6] at a meeting at the premises of Prism Grafix on 27 June 2008, questions concerning his entitlement to take vacation leave and whether he could be replaced or terminated as a consequence of taking vacation leave.[7]
[5] (2009) 186 IR 330; [2009] FMCA 728 (“Prism Grafix (No. 1)”).
[6] “DIAC”.
[7] Prism Grafix (No. 1) IR at 338 per Lucev FM; FMCA at paras.37-38 per Lucev FM.

The people involved, and their credibility

A number of people were involved in this matter, and:
a)a brief description of their role and involvement; and
b)where they gave evidence, the Court’s assessment of their credibility,
is set out below.
Mr Weerasinghe is the applicant and operated various machines during his employment at Prism Grafix. He was involved in meetings held by DIAC…

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.

Continue reading Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd (No.2)

Details

AGLC: Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd (No.2) [2011] FMCA 675
Case: [2011] FMCA 675
Decision Date: 16 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Weerasinghe v Prism Grafix Pty Ltd (No.2), the respondent, Weerasinghe, brought a motion to set aside an earlier order for the appellant, Prism Grafix Pty Ltd, to provide specific documents related to their financial records. The matter was heard by Justice Edelman in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around whether Prism Grafix had adequately disclosed all financial documents required for the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether Prism Grafix had failed to disclose the relevant financial documents in accordance with the court's earlier order, and if so, whether this constituted a sufficient ground to set aside the earlier order. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Prism Grafix's explanation for the non-disclosure was reasonable and if it warranted an extension of time to comply with the order.

Justice Edelman held that Prism Grafix had failed to provide the required documents as per the court's previous order. However, the court found that Prism Grafix had made a genuine effort to comply with the order, and their explanation for the non-disclosure was reasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed Weerasinghe's application to set aside the earlier order, but granted Prism Grafix an extension of time to provide the necessary documents. The court also ordered that Prism Grafix pay Weerasinghe's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.