CTHFCA

Martires v Endura Paint Pty Ltd

[2021] FCA 179

Federal Court of Australia|2021-03-09|Before: Flick J, Jackson J

View original source

At a glance

AI case summary

Result

defendant. Application dismissed

Key principles

The Federal Court will refuse to grant constitutional writs where a more convenient and satisfactory remedy exists and where no useful result could ensue.
A litigant should not commence judicial review proceedings where they have a full right of appeal entitling them to a rehearing, as this constitutes an impermissible use of...
Where an appeal has already succeeded and the lower court's decision has been set aside, there is no decision to which certiorari may apply.
Merits review is never appropriate in an application for constitutional writs.

Issues before the court

Whether judicial review by way of certiorari and mandamus should be granted in respect of a Federal Circuit Court decision where the applicant has...
Whether certiorari could issue where the appeal had already succeeded
Whether mandamus could issue where the matter had been remitted
Whether merits review is available in judicial review proceedings

Plain English Summary

A man who lost his employment case in the Federal Circuit Court tried both to appeal that decision and to get it judicially reviewed at the same time. The Federal Court said this was wrong—you shouldn't use judicial review when you have a proper appeal available. The court also noted that because the appeal had already succeeded and wiped out the original decision, there was nothing left for judicial review to 'quash'. The court dismissed the judicial review application as unnecessary and improper.

AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes — check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

[1]

The application is dismissed.
The first respondent must file and serve any written submission on the costs of the application on or before 16 March 2021, such submission not to exceed three pages in length.
The applicant must file and serve any written submission on the costs of the application on or before 23 March 2021, such submission not to exceed three pages in length.
Any question of costs arising on such submissions will be dealt with on the papers. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

JACKSON J: 1 On 20 April 2020 the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissed an application which the present applicant, Mr Martires, brought under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). 2 Mr Martires appealed to this court from that decision. In a judgment delivered immediately before this one, I allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court, and remitted the matter to that court for a new trial: Martires v Endura Paint Pty Ltd (Appeal) [2021] FCA 178. 3 As well as the appeal, Mr Martires, who is self-represented, brought an application for judicial review of the Federal Circuit Court's decision. He sought a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus pertaining to this case. That application is the subject of these reasons. 4 The court may refuse to grant constitutional writs in the exercise of its discretion on grounds which include that a more convenient and satisfactory remedy exists, and that no useful result could ensue: R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd (1949) 78 CLR 389 at 400. 5 I dismiss this application on both of those discretionary grounds. 6 First, Mr Martires should not have commenced an application for judicial review of the Federal Circuit Court, when he had a full right of appeal entitling him to a rehearing, in the sense in which that term is used in the context of appellate jurisdiction: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1)(d); see e.g. ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099 at [11] (Flick J). The appeal he brought gave this court, constituted by myself, the power to correct any errors of which Mr Martires complained which he was able to establish were appealable errors: see Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2017] FCAFC 33, (2017) 248 FCR 1 at [41]. 7 In contrast, to succeed in this application Mr Martires needed to establish a narrower category of error, namely jurisdictional error: see Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476 at 508. The errors he alleged in this proceeding were the same as those alleged in the appeal (and both were heard together). 8 In short, this application was pointless. An unnecessary multiplication of proceedings is to be discouraged: see e.g. Police v Lymberopoulos [2007] SASC 247; (2007) 98 SASR 433 at [71] (Doyle CJ). I dismiss the application for certiorari and mandamus on that ground. 9 I also dismiss the application for certiorari for the further reason that there is nothing for it to operate on, the appeal having succeeded and the Federal Circuit Court decision having been set aside. The matter having been remitted to that court, there is no need to issue mandamus (if there ever would have been anyway). 10 Mr Martires also applied for an order reversing the Federal Circuit Court decision and substituting this court's decision on the merits for that of the primary judge. Such merits review can never be appropriate in an application of this kind. 11 The application must be dismissed. The first respondent having indicated a possible desire to seek costs under s 570 of the Fair Work Act, I will make a direction entitling it to do so by brief written submission within seven days. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackson.

Martires v Endura Paint Pty Ltd

At a glance

Result

Key principles

Issues before the court

Plain English Summary

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Cited legislation

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (9)

Cited By (3)

AI Analysis