Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rucinski v Monash University [2012] FCA 362 Citation: Rucinski v Monash University [2012] FCA 362
Parties: JOHN RUCINSKI v MONASH UNIVERSITY
File number: VID 336 of 2010
Judge: NORTH J
Date of judgment: 29 February 2012
Date of hearing: 29 February 2012
Place: Melbourne
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 37
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C O'Grady
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY FAIR WORK DIVISION VID 336 of 2010
BETWEEN: JOHN RUCINSKI
Applicant
AND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
Respondent
JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 29 FEBRUARY 2012 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The respondent has leave to amend the Points of Defence in the terms of the attachment to the interlocutory application filed on 15 December 2011. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of 5 December 2011 fixed in the sum of $3500, in two instalments, the first instalment of $1750 by 1 May 2012, and the second instalment of $1750 by 1 June 2012. Note: The entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY FAIR WORK DIVISION VID 336 of 2010
BETWEEN: JOHN RUCINSKI
Applicant
AND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
Respondent
JUDGE: NORTH J DATE: 29 FEBRUARY 2012 PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
the application for judgment 1 On 7 October 2011, the respondent, Monash University (Monash), filed an interlocutory application seeking an order under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act), and/or r 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, that summary judgment be given against the applicant, Mr John Rucinski. The grounds upon which Monash relied were that Mr Rucinski has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding (s 31A of the Act; r 26.01(1)(a)), no reasonable cause of action is disclosed (r 26.01(1)(c)), and/or the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court (r 26.01(1)(d)).
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate