FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wang v Purpose Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 381

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.

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 on or about 8 January 2001. He later made a claim for compensation of approximately $180,000 against the first respondent which was denied by the first respondent. The dispute over compensation was determined by an arbitrator on 3 August 2007. He found for the first respondent. The arbitrator summarised his decision in these terms:

The Applicant has established that he suffered an injury in the course of his employment, but has failed to establish that the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury.

6    The applicant sought leave from the Workers Compensation Commission to appeal the arbitrator’s determination. Leave to appeal was refused on 26 February 2008. The applicant then sought leave to appeal from that decision to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal that decision was refused by the Court of Appeal on 17 September 2008.

7    The applicant then brought an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal to the High Court of Australia. That application was dismissed by the High Court on 1 April 2009.

8    The applicant then applied to the Commission for reconsideration of its orders of 26 February 2008. On 10 June 2009 that application was dismissed by the Commission. He then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the Commission’s orders of 10 June 2009. That application was heard and dismissed on 18 November 2009. An application for special leave to appeal against that order was dismissed by the High Court on 26 May 2010.

9    The applicant then filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court on 15 October 2010. It is extremely difficult to say looking at the application filed in the Federal Magistrates Court what jurisdiction the applicant was seeking to invoke. He filed various documents including a document entitled “Claim under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for unlawful termination of employment”. That document is prolix, confused and difficult to understand. It contains many assertions relating to the circumstances surrounding the injuries suffered by the respondent in August 2000, the termination of his employment in January 2001 and what are alleged to be false and misleading statements made by his former employer, and its legal representatives, in relation to these matters. On 21 December 2010, the applicant also filed an amended application in the Federal Magistrates Court. That document seems to have been intended to correct a problem with respect to the identify of the parties to the proceeding. But to confuse matters even further it indicates that the jurisdiction invoked by the applicant arose under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005.

10    The applicant can have no arguable claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005. The events giving rise to his complaints occurred some years before either of those statutes were in force. So far as the Workplace Relations Act 1996 is concerned, it was substantially repealed the year before the applicant commenced proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court. In any event, that Act imposed time limits relating to the bringing of proceedings for unlawful termination of employment. The relevant time limit expired around 10 years ago.

11    On 16 February 2011 the applicant’s proceeding was listed for a directions hearing before the learned Federal Magistrate. The applicant was represented at that hearing by a solicitor who asked the Court to make an order dismissing the proceeding. The respondents consented to that order. The order made by her Honour was that the proceeding be dismissed. At the time of making that order her Honour made it clear that the dismissal was intended to extend to all aspects of the proceeding including all matters propounded in the amended application.

12    It is obvious enough why the applicant’s solicitor consented to the dismissal. The proceeding was doomed to fail.

13    The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:    15 April 2011