Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 1778

Rangi v Kmart Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 1778

The applicant's pleadings did not establish any real or substantial alteration to his employment position to support an adverse action claim under s 342(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth); mere disappointment at not being promoted or personal expectations did not suffice. The costs order was properly made as the proceeding was instituted without reasonable cause and continued unreasonably after warning. Thus, no sufficient doubt attended the primary judge's decisions to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment Denying Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'summary Judgment' 'costs' 'workplace Rights' 'fair Work Act']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['adverse Action' 'summary Judgment' 'costs' 'workplace Rights' 'fair Work Act']

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 Leave to Appeal / Judgment Denying Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in granting summary judgment against the applicant in adverse action proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)' "Whether failures to promote constitute 'adverse action' within item 1(c) of s 342(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)" 'Whether the costs order under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was correct and should be reconsidered' 'Whether the decisions of the primary judge are attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration in light of the Décor test for leave to appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's pleadings did not establish any real or substantial alteration to his employment position to support an adverse action claim under s 342(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth); mere disappointment at not being promoted or personal expectations did not suffice. The costs order was properly made as the proceeding was instituted without reasonable cause and continued unreasonably after warning. Thus, no sufficient doubt attended the primary judge's decisions to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The parties are to confer on the issue of costs in respect of proceedings VID949/2018 and VID1618/2018 and within 14 days hereof they are to file agreed orders or, if no agreement is reached, submissions of no more than two pages in length.']