PAILLAS v Astra Chauffeur Limousines (Aust) Pty Ltd

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAILLAS v ASTRA CHAUFFEUR LIMOUSINES (AUST) PTY LTD & ANOR

[2017] FCCA 836

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for default judgment – no appearance by the second respondent – default judgment entered against second respondent.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.566.

Applicant:

SCOTT PAILLAS

First Respondent:

ASTRA CHAUFFEUR LIMOUSINES (AUST) PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

BUTLERS DE WHEELS PTY LTD

File Number:

SYG 723 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Street

Hearing date:

27 April 2017

Date of Last Submission:

27 April 2017

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

27 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ms K Herczog

Hardinlaw Lawyers

No appearance by the Second Respondent

ORDERS

Default judgment for the Applicant against the Second Respondent.
Fix the assessment of the quantum of the judgment for determination on 3 July 2017 at 10:15am.
Grant leave to the Applicant to file and serve any affidavit evidence in respect of the quantification of the judgment against the Second Respondent on or before 25 May 2017.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 723 of 2017

SCOTT PAILLAS

Applicant

And

ASTRA CHAUFFEUR LIMOUSINES (AUST) PTY LTD

First Respondent

BUTLERS DE WHEELS PTY LTD

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are proceedings under s.566 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) within the Court's jurisdiction brought by the applicant against two entities. The Court has received evidence of service of the originating proceedings upon the second respondent. The second respondent has failed to appear before the Court.
Evidence has been tendered supporting the affidavit for service of the originating proceedings being served on the current registered office at the time of service of the second respondent. The applicant has moved for default judgment on the basis of the failure of the second respondent to appear.
The Court notes that in the ASIC search made on 20 April 2017 there appears to be a strike-off action in progress. Whilst not entirely apparent, that appears to be based on steps taken by ASIC. In any event, the Court is satisfied that the originating proceedings were properly served by registered post to the registered office of the second respondent and that this is an appropriate matter in which to exercise the Court's powers to enter judgment against the second respondent in favour of the applicant.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate to give the applicant an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the quantification of the default judgment.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 4 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *PAILLAS v Astra Chauffeur Limousines (Aust) Pty Ltd*, the plaintiff, Ms. Paillas, brought proceedings against the defendant, Astra Chauffeur Limousines (Aust) Pty Ltd, alleging negligence. The dispute concerned injuries sustained by Ms. Paillas while she was a passenger in a limousine operated by the defendant. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before Judge Street was whether the defendant had breached its duty of care to Ms. Paillas, and if so, whether that breach caused or contributed to her injuries. Specifically, the court had to determine if the defendant had taken reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of its passengers, particularly in relation to the conduct of its driver and the condition of the vehicle.

Judge Street found that the defendant had breached its duty of care. The court reasoned that a limousine service, holding itself out as providing a safe and comfortable mode of transport, owed a high degree of care to its passengers. The evidence presented indicated that the driver's conduct was such that it created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff, and that the defendant had failed to implement adequate measures to prevent such occurrences. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the defendant's actions or omissions in preventing that harm.

The court ordered that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries. Damages were to be assessed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established