Knespal v Regional Express Holding Ltd

all outstanding applications will be dismissed under s 140 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. This proceeding involves an application filed on 1 August 2023, through which the applicant (Ms Knespal) contends that she was dismissed from employment in contravention of s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
2. The matter was adjourned for mediation, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Orders were made by a Registrar of this Court on 24 May 2024 providing timetabling for an amended application, response and any reply, as well as for the filing and service of evidence. Further to this timetabling, the matter was listed for directions in November 2024.
3. On 24 September 2024, my Associate was notified by email that administrators had been appointed in relation to the respondent (Regional Express). Reference was made to s 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which precludes the continuation of the proceeding without written consent or leave. Consent was not provided. Instead, the administrators encouraged Ms Knespal to lodge a claim in the administration.
4. Noting that Ms Knespal was self-represented, the listing on 12 November 2024 was maintained to discuss the situation. At the listing, the effect of s 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was discussed. It was explained that the matter was unable to proceed whilst Regional Express was in administration unless an application for leave was made by Ms Knespal and granted by a relevant Court. Ms Knespal was encouraged to obtain legal advice in relation to whether an application for leave ought to be made. It was noted that there was potentially some question as to whether the application was able to be made to this Court or needed to be made to another Court, such as the Federal Court, which would need to be considered if the application were made to this Court: see for example Rhind v Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator's Appointed) [2023] FedCFamC2G 50 (Rhind) at [29] (Judge Neville), Zemin & Kaba (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 748 at [3] (Judge Street) and Donnola v Silverleaf Constructions Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 577 at [3]- [19] (Judge Manousaridis).
5. At the listing on 12 November 2024, Ms Knespal sought and was granted an adjournment to consider her options and find out more about the administration. The matter was next scheduled to come before the Court on 9 December 2024. At that listing, Ms Knespal sought and was granted some further time, with the matter next being listed on 14 March 2025.
6. In advance of the March listing, Ms Knespal sought further adjournment of the matter, noting that a creditors' meeting was expected to take place in early July. By orders made on 27 February 2025, the matter was adjourned to this morning. A notation to the orders foreshadowed that at the listing this morning, orders may be considered to the effect that the proceeding would be dismissed if Ms Knespal did not take specified action by a certain date.
7. At the listing this morning, the situation was discussed with Ms Knespal. It was explained that the matter was unable to continue indefinitely. The orders I proposed to make were discussed. Ms Knespal indicated that she understood and was also motivated to bring a conclusion, one way or the other, to the proceeding.
8. In the foregoing circumstances, I have made orders to similar effect to those foreshadowed in the orders made on 27 February 2025. Inspiration for this approach has been taken from the decision in Rhind, although I have not framed the orders as being "indicative". This is due to limitations in understanding on my part regarding the effect of that approach.
9. The orders made today will be self-executing. They will give Ms Knespal a further 6 months in which she may seek advice and elect either to make an application for leave to proceed or discontinue the proceeding. If Ms Knespal does not discontinue the proceeding and files no Application in a Proceeding on the basis that (a) an application for leave to proceed has been made, or (b) Regional Express is no longer under administration, then the matter will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Laing.