McLoughlin v Randstad Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCLOUGHLIN v RANDSTAD PTY LTD & ORS (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 1894

Catchwords:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia – no proper basis for a transfer of the proceedings made out – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 566

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r 8.02

Applicant:

BEVERLY MCLOUGHLIN

First Respondent:

RANDSTAD PTY LTD ABN 28 080 275 378

Second Respondent:

PAUL STEWART

Third Respondent:

BROOKE O'KEEFE

Fourth Respondent:

NICK PESCH

File Number:

SYG 2985 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Street

Hearing date:

10 July 2020

Date of Last Submission:

10 July 2020

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

10 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr G Fredericks

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Danny King Legal

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr M Seck

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Holding Redlich

ORDERS

The application in a case filed on 3 July 2020 is dismissed.

Date of order: 10 July 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2985 of 2018

BEVERLY MCLOUGHLIN

Applicant

And

RANDSTAD PTY LTD

First Respondent

PAUL STEWART

Second Respondent

BROOKE O'KEEFE

Third Respondent

NICK PESCH

Fourth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are proceedings that were commenced on 24 October 2018 under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and pursuant to the Court’s jurisdiction under s 566 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The proceedings were fixed for hearing in February of this year. An application for transfer was filed on 3 July 2020, after the hearing date was fixed.
The Court has taken into account the matters identified in r 8.02 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) and it has also had read an affidavit by Ms Emmerick and an affidavit by the solicitor for the respondent.
It is not necessary for the Court to descend into further detail. Suffice to say that the proposition that this Court did not have sufficient financial resources to properly hear the matter was baseless. No proper basis for a transfer of the proceedings has been made out. It is for these reasons that the application in a case is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the transcript of the published oral reasons for judgment of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 10 July 2020 and the parties were sent a sealed copy of the Court’s orders.

Associate:

Date: 19 February 2021

In *McLoughlin v Randstad Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2)*, Judge Street of the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered an application by the plaintiff, McLoughlin, for the transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia. The application was opposed by the defendants, Randstad Pty Ltd and others.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff had established a proper basis for the transfer of the proceedings from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Federal Court of Australia.

Judge Street dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that a transfer was warranted. The Court concluded that no sufficient grounds had been made out to justify the removal of the case from the Supreme Court to the Federal Court.

Consequently, the application filed on 3 July 2020 was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established