Gambaro v Mobycom Mobile Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 211

Gambaro v Mobycom Mobile Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 211

Leave to appeal was not warranted because the proposed grounds did not disclose sufficient doubt about the interlocutory orders. The primary judge was not shown to be wrong in refusing an amendment seeking to claim wages already received, since payment by a third party could discharge the employer's wage obligation and the amendment would introduce diversionary issues. The primary judge also did not err in refusing to add a proposed seventh respondent because the proposed pleading lacked the precision and allegations of knowledge necessary for accessorial liability. The complaints about delay and ex tempore reasons did not disclose error. With no sufficient case for leave, granting an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders in a Fair Work Act Proceeding / Application Dismissed
Outcome
The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal was dismissed; costs were reserved pending any application for costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'payment of Wages by Third Party' 'accessorial Liability' 'self Represented Litigants' 'ex Tempore Reasons']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment Law' 'industrial Law'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'payment of Wages by Third Party' 'accessorial Liability' 'self Represented Litigants' 'ex Tempore Reasons']

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 Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders in a Fair Work Act Proceeding / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted in respect of interlocutory orders refusing parts of an amendment application.' "Whether payment of wages by a third party can discharge an employer's obligation to pay wages owed to an employee." 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to permit amendment to join a proposed seventh respondent on the basis of accessorial liability.' 'Whether delay in delivering decisions or the delivery of ex tempore reasons disclosed appealable error.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was not warranted because the proposed grounds did not disclose sufficient doubt about the interlocutory orders. The primary judge was not shown to be wrong in refusing an amendment seeking to claim wages already received, since payment by a third party could discharge the employer's wage obligation and the amendment would introduce diversionary issues. The primary judge also did not err in refusing to add a proposed seventh respondent because the proposed pleading lacked the precision and allegations of knowledge necessary for accessorial liability. The complaints about delay and ex tempore reasons did not disclose error. With no sufficient case for leave, granting an...

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal was dismissed; costs were reserved pending any application for costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'Any application by a respondent for costs is to be made by a written submission of not more than 3 pages filed and served not later than 19 March 2021.' 'In the event that an application for costs is so made, the...