Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 515

Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 515

The applicant's originating application was deficient because it omitted a contact telephone number required by r 2.16(1)(d). After being directed to provide the number, given adjournments to reflect, supplied with the rule, warned that non-compliance may result in dismissal, and assured that providing the number would not disadvantage him, the applicant persisted in refusing to provide it. Because the administration of justice required that the registry be able to contact him by telephone, the proceeding was dismissed for want of compliance with the case management direction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Fair Work Commission / Case Management; Proceeding Dismissed for Want of Compliance With a Case Management Direction
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed for want of compliance with a case management direction; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 2.16' 'originating Application Contact Telephone Number Requirement' 'case Management Directions' 'dismissal for Non Compliance' 'fair Work Commission Decision']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 2.16' 'originating Application Contact Telephone Number Requirement' 'case Management Directions' 'dismissal for Non Compliance' 'fair Work Commission Decision']

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

Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Fair Work Commission / Case Management; Proceeding Dismissed for Want of Compliance With a Case Management Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the originating application was deficient because it did not provide a contact telephone number required by r 2.16(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the proceeding should be dismissed after the applicant refused to comply with a direction to provide his telephone number to the Court.' 'Whether the parties to the proceeding should be regularised by joining the employer, making the Fair Work Commission the second respondent, and removing individual members of the Fair Work Commission as respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's originating application was deficient because it omitted a contact telephone number required by r 2.16(1)(d). After being directed to provide the number, given adjournments to reflect, supplied with the rule, warned that non-compliance may result in dismissal, and assured that providing the number would not disadvantage him, the applicant persisted in refusing to provide it. Because the administration of justice required that the registry be able to contact him by telephone, the proceeding was dismissed for want of compliance with the case management direction.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed for want of compliance with a case management direction; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Superior Wood Pty Ltd trading as Superior Wood be joined as the first respondent.' 'The Fair Work Commission become the second respondent.' 'The presently named second, third and fourth respondents, namely Vice President Adam Hatcher, Deputy President Amber Millhouse, and Commissioner Peter Hampton be removed as...