Willis v Capital Radiology Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Willis v Capital Radiology Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1199

Citation: Willis v Capital Radiology Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1199
Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: James Sydney Willis v Capital Radiology Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 2475
Parties: JAMES SYDNEY WILLIS v CAPITAL RADIOLOGY PTY LTD
File number: VID 603 of 2015
Judge: PAGONE J
Date of judgment: 6 November 2015
Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – workplace bullying – claim before Fair Work Commission – adverse action – unfair dismissal – exercise of workplace right – whether substance to application – whether adequate reason for dismissal from employment – whether unreasonable conduct of applicant caused respondent to incur costs

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal – considerations relevant to determining whether to grant extension of time – considerations relevant to determining whether to grant leave to appeal – whether proposed grounds of appeal lack merit – whether adequate explanation provided for delay in bringing application
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 570(2)(b)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 35.13, 35.14
Cases cited:

Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FCA 320
Duncan v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2007] FCA 507
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Khondoker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 654
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 483

SZOZG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 756

SZSPR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1210
Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 989
Date of hearing: 6 November 2015
Place: Melbourne
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 13
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms C Symons
Solicitor for the Respondent: SIAG Legal Pty Ltd

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

VID 603 of 2015
BETWEEN:

JAMES SYDNEY WILLIS
Applicant
AND:

CAPITAL RADIOLOGY PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

PAGONE J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 NOVEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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

FAIR WORK DIVISION

VID 603 of 2015
BETWEEN:

JAMES SYDNEY WILLIS
Applicant
AND:

CAPITAL RADIOLOGY PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

PAGONE J

DATE:

6 NOVEMBER 2015

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

  1. This is an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal from a judgment of Judge Riley of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia delivered on 4 September 2015. Judge Riley dismissed the applicant’s application for reinstatement of a proceeding before the Federal Circuit Court, which had been dismissed on 7…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Willis v Capital Radiology 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
[2015] FCA 1199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Willis brought a claim against Capital Radiology Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, alleging workplace bullying, adverse action, and unfair dismissal. The applicant sought to appeal the dismissal of these claims to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. As part of the application for leave to appeal, Willis also sought an extension of time to bring the application. The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a sufficient basis for the appeal and whether the applicant had provided an adequate explanation for the delay in bringing the application. The court also had to consider whether the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit and whether the delay in bringing the application warranted an extension of time.

The court found that the proposed grounds of appeal were unlikely to succeed and that the applicant had not provided an adequate explanation for the delay in bringing the application. The applicant had alleged that their unreasonable conduct caused the respondent to incur costs, but the court found that this did not constitute a sufficient basis for the appeal. The court also found that the delay in bringing the application was not justified and that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The court noted that the decision was not a reflection on the merits of the original claim before the Fair Work Commission, but rather a decision on the specific grounds of appeal and the application for an extension of time. The court also noted that the decision was final and not subject to further appeal. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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

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.