Case: Barrick v Qantas Flight Catering Limited [2007] FCA 835
Outcome: discussed
principal proceedings were, in many respects, bizarre. On 31 May 2007, I gave judgment in this matter dismissing the application: Barrick v Qantas Flight Catering Limited [2007] FCA 835. In those reasons, I said, at [2]-[6]: ... the Federal Court proceedings, which were commenced by an application filed on 17 June 2002, involve an extraordinary collocation of alleged causes of action, many of which are misconceived or assert a cause of action not known to the law. It is a sad but true observation that the applicant's case has been conducted on the basis essentially of assertion, and the absence of probative evidence. 3 The relief claimed by Mrs Barrick in these proceedings is for: (i) the recovery of fines and penalties for alleged breaches of a number of provisions of the Award by Qantas Catering; (ii) recovery of wages and superannuation alleged to have been unpaid by Qantas Catering; (iii) damages under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1976 (Cth) (the TP Act) for breaches of s 51AA and s 52; (iv) and further and alternatively, for damages for breach of contract and or statutory duty; (v) and further and alternatively, damages and or equitable compensation for harsh and unconscionable conduct; (vi) and further and alternatively, for declaratory relief in reliance on s 80 of the TP Act, or alternatively, on reliance on the rules of natural justice and the principles of equity and good conscience and the common law of the Commonwealth; (vii) and further and alternatively, for a mandatory injunction in reliance on s 80 of the TP Act, and or alternatively in reliance on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to uphold the statutory and common law of the Commonwealth, including the rules of natural justice and the principles of equity and good conscience; (viii) and further and alternatively damages and or equitable compensation as the Court deems fit and appropriate including exemplary damages in consequence of the respondent's compliance or non-compliance with the proposed orders for declaratory and mandatory injunction; (ix) such further or other orders as the Court deems fit in all the circumstances of the case as set out herein; (x) an order for costs on an indemnity basis; (xi) interest on all monies and damages found to be payable. It was pleaded in Mrs Barrick's case in [45] of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, filed 28 April 2005: 45. ..., the conduct of the Respondent [ Qantas Flight Catering Limited ] in:- (i) reversing its previous positions; (ii) and failing to take appropriate steps to correct its treatment of the Applicant on the strength of its original allegations and accusations (including its dismissal of the Applicant, her prosecution for fraud and refusal to pay superannuation on the grounds of ill health); (iii) and putting forward evidence, claims and defences in these proceedings which it could and should have put forward in the previous proceedings is unreasonable and contrary to equity and good conscience. 5 Further, in [46], it was pleaded: In the premises and in the absence of proper and reasonable explanations from the Respondent [Qantas Flight Catering Limited] to justify or excuse the conduct on its part ... the Respondent should be held as the Applicant reasonably apprehends to have committed an abuse of the process of the AIRC and the Magistrates Court to the detriment of the Applicant. This is, quite simply, an extraordinary assumption of what the Federal Court is empowered to do. There was no cause of action available to the applicant by which she could revisit the the issues which were the subject of findings in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to the effect that the applicant was complicit in a fraudulent scheme. The applicant asserted that in the AIRC proceedings, the conduct by the respondent in resisting her application for unlawful termination or reinstatement was false, and was a representation in trade or commerce entitling the applicant, pursuant to the Trade Practices Act 1976 (Cth) to recovery of legal expenses. As my reasons for judgment in the principal proceedings demonstrate, I was and am of the view that the proceedings in the Federal Court were brought for the dominant purpose of having the Federal Court revisit the determinations of other courts and tribunals (including the proceedings in the AIRC) and the findings concerning the conduct of the respondent, or its officers, in such proceedings, which were determined adversely to the applicant. In particular, it was said that the proceedings in the Federal Court were brought to obtain findings from the Federal Court contrary to those of the AIRC, "to clear the applicant's name".