Molony v ATM Logistics Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 640

Molony v ATM Logistics Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 640

The extension of time was granted because the applicant himself was blameless in the delay, he provided timely instructions, and the delays were solely attributable to his solicitor's unsatisfactory conduct. No significant prejudice to the respondents was established, and the applicant's claims (except for the general protections claim) could proceed regardless. The solicitor's conduct warranted that he indemnify the applicant for the costs ordered to be paid to the respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time in a General Protections Claim / Application for Extension of Time to File General Protection Claim Under Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)
Outcome
Application for extension of time allowed; costs order against applicant, with indemnity from his solicitor for those costs.
Legal Topics
['fair Work Act General Protections' 'extension of Time Applications' 'costs and Solicitor Indemnity']
['employment Law' 'industrial Relations' 'practice and Procedure'] ['fair Work Act General Protections' 'extension of Time Applications' 'costs and Solicitor Indemnity']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time in a General Protections Claim / Application for Extension of Time to File General Protection Claim Under Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for lodging the general protections court application under s 370(a)(ii) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) should be extended' "Whether the applicant's solicitor should indemnify the applicant for costs ordered to be paid to the respondents"]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was granted because the applicant himself was blameless in the delay, he provided timely instructions, and the delays were solely attributable to his solicitor's unsatisfactory conduct. No significant prejudice to the respondents was established, and the applicant's claims (except for the general protections claim) could proceed regardless. The solicitor's conduct warranted that he indemnify the applicant for the costs ordered to be paid to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time allowed; costs order against applicant, with indemnity from his solicitor for those costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's interlocutory application dated 2 February 2018 be allowed." 'Time extended until 15 December 2017 for commencement of a court application for the claims made under s 356 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' "The applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the application." "The applicant's solicitor,...