Atanaskovic Hartnell Corporate Services Pty Limited v Kelly [2024] FCAFC 137

Federal Court of Australia Atanaskovic Hartnell Corporate Services Pty Limited v Kelly [2024] FCAFC 137 Appeal from: Kelly v Atanaskovic Hartnell Corporate Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2G 112 Kelly v Atanaskovic Hartnell Corporate Services Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC2G 1

File number(s): NSD 306 of 2022

Judgment of: COLLIER, LOGAN AND GOODMAN JJ

Date of judgment: 31 October 2024

Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – where the appellants appeal from decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it then was) (Circuit Court) that found a long-serving employee of the first appellant (the respondent) was entitled to damages for unpaid unemployment entitlements, as well as general damages, and that the appellants had breached sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where, in the Circuit Court, the appellants had made a cross-claim against the respondent for breaches of her employment contract – where the first primary judge in the Circuit Court dismissed the cross-claim – where the first primary judge's reasons for the dismissal were an unattributed, wholesale copy and paste of the respondent's written closing submissions – whether the first primary judge's reasons for dismissal of the cross claim were adequate or whether justice was seen to be done – appeal allowed INDUSTRIAL LAW – where the appellants appeal from decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it then was) (Circuit Court) that found a long-serving employee of the first appellant (the respondent) was entitled to damages for unpaid unemployment entitlements and general damages and that the appellants had breached sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where, in the Circuit Court, the appellants had made a cross-claim against the respondent for breaches of her employment contract – where the first primary judge in the Circuit Court dismissed the cross-claim – where the first primary judge's reasons for the dismissal were an unattributed, wholesale copy and paste of the respondent's written closing submissions – whether the first primary judge's reasons for dismissal of the cross claim were adequate or whether justice was seen to be done – appeal allowed