FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Currie v Joffe [2020] FCA 68 File number(s): VID 39 of 2019 Judge: KENNY J Date of judgment: 5 February 2020 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether to transfer proceeding to Federal Circuit Court of Australia under s 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – proceeding transferred Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 566 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 32AB Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Regulation 2012 (Cth) schedule 1 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 27.11, 27.12 Date of last submissions: 10 December 2019 Registry: Victoria Division: Fair Work Division National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 19 Solicitor for the Applicant: McDonald Murholme Solicitors Solicitor for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd ORDERS VID 39 of 2019 BETWEEN: MARTINE CURRIE Applicant AND: DR PAUL MARC JOFFE Respondent JUDGE: KENNY J DATE OF ORDER: 5 February 2020 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Pursuant to s 32AB(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the above-named proceeding be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT KENNY J: 1 For the reasons stated hereafter, I would exercise the power conferred by s 32AB(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to transfer the present proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Background to the proceeding 2 The applicant, Ms Martine Currie, filed an originating application on 21 January 2019 in which she sought, amongst other things, damages, compensation under s 545(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), as well as an order for the payment to her (under s 546(3)) of pecuniary penalties, which she also seeks under s 546(1) of the Fair Work Act. 3 In a statement of claim filed on 24 May 2019, Ms Currie claimed that she had commenced employment on 19 September 2016 as a medical receptionist/personal assistant with the respondent, Dr Paul Marc Joffe, at his medical clinic. She further claimed that Dr Joffe terminated her employment on 15 October 2018 in breach of s 340(1)(a)(ii) of the Fair Work Act by taking adverse action within the meaning of s 342(1) of that Act for reasons including her exercise of workplace rights (including the right to make a complaint or an inquiry in relation to her employment and the right to take paid personal leave when not fit for work because of personal illness). Ms Currie claimed that Dr Joffe breached s 352 of the Fair Work Act when he dismissed her because of her temporary absences from work. She claimed various other breaches including breaches of the express terms of her employment contract, and with respect to an alleged failure to pay notice in lieu of termination, personal leave, annual leave and superannuation in breach of s 536(1) (and ss 90(2), 99 and 323(1)(a)) of the Fair Work Act. 4 Dr Joffe filed a defence on 19 July 2019 in substance denying the claims against him. Ms Currie filed a reply on 2 August 2019. 5 Following an unsuccessful mediation before a Registrar of this Court, orders were made for submissions to be made by the parties regarding the possible transfer of the proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court under s 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act and for the issue of transfer to be determined on the papers. The parties filed their submissions on 10 December 2019. The parties' submissions 6 The applicant, Ms Currie, opposed the transfer of the proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court, submitting that the multiple causes of action and the nature of the alleged breaches meant that the questions in the proceeding were of general importance. The applicant submitted that since proceedings had been filed in this Court, it would be more convenient to retain them here; that a referral to the Federal Circuit Court would involve additional delay given that Court's workload and procedural requirements; and that this Court should have regard to the applicant's choice of forum. She further submitted that this Court would be the appropriate forum given the damages and penalties sought by the applicant in the proceeding. 7 The respondent, Dr Joffe, submitted that the transfer should be made, as the questions raised by the proceeding were not of general importance; were readily susceptible of resolution by the Federal Circuit Court; and did not involve novel or controversial questions of law. The respondent further submitted that given the early stage of the proceeding a judge of the Federal Circuit Court would be equally well placed to hear the matter; that having regard to each Court's record of case completion the matter was likely to be heard more quickly there; that there were no proceedings in respect of an associated matter currently pending in either the Federal Circuit Court or this Court; and that costs incurred in the proceeding would be lower in the Federal Circuit Court. Principles relevant to the question of transfer 8 Section 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act provides that the Court may transfer a proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court. That section relevantly provides: 32AB Discretionary transfer of civil proceedings to the Federal Circuit Court (1) If a proceeding is pending in the Court, the Court may, by order, transfer the proceeding from the Court to the Federal Circuit Court. (2) The Court may transfer a proceeding under subsection (1): (a) on the application of a party to the proceeding; or (b) on its own initiative. … (6) In deciding whether to transfer a proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court under subsection (1), the Court must have regard to: (a) any Rules of Court made for the purposes of subsection (4); and (b) whether proceedings in respect of an associated matter are pending in the Federal Circuit Court; and (c) whether the resources of the Federal Circuit Court are sufficient to hear and determine the proceeding; and (d) the interests of the administration of justice. (7) If an order is made under subsection (1), the Court may make such orders as it considers necessary pending the disposal of the proceeding by the Federal Circuit Court. … 9 Rules 27.11 and 27.12 of the Federal Court Rules are also relevant but it suffices to refer to r 27.12, which states: 27.12 Factors to be taken into account (1) For an appeal under the AAT Act, the parties must address the matters mentioned in section 44AA(7) of that Act. (2) For a proceeding, the parties must address the matters mentioned in section 32AB(6) of the Act. (3) For an appeal under the AAT Act or a proceeding, the parties should address the following: (a) whether the appeal or proceeding is likely to involve questions of general importance; (b) whether it would be less expensive and more convenient to the parties if the appeal or proceeding were transferred; (c) whether an appeal or proceeding would be determined more quickly if transferred; (d) the wishes of the parties. 10 Accordingly, in determining whether or not the Court should transfer the proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court, regard to must be had to the matters in s 32AB(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act and r 27.12(3) of the Federal Court Rules. Consideration 11 It may be accepted that, as the respondent submitted, there are no proceedings in respect of an associated matter currently before the Federal Circuit Court or this Court. 12 The questions raised by the proceeding are outlined above. Although their determination is important for the parties, it does not seem to me that they are of such general importance (for example, because novel or controversial) that this Court, rather than the Federal Circuit Court, should determine them. Rather, it appears that the questions to be determined in the proceeding are primarily questions of fact and the application of law to those facts, such as may be appropriately determined by the Federal Circuit Court. Having regard to the nature of the legal issues to be resolved, they do not appear to me to involve a point of principle that should be heard by this Court. 13 I am also not persuaded by the applicant's submissions that this Court is a more appropriate forum than the Federal Circuit Court on the basis that "it [the Federal Court of Australia] has uncapped damages and high penalties which can apply in this case but may not apply in other cases commenced in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia". There is no basis to conclude that the applicant cannot be given proper relief in the Federal Circuit Court, having regard to nature of her claims and the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Circuit Court by s 566 of the Fair Work Act. 14 Further, the fees likely to be incurred in connection with a proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court as compared with this Court pursuant to schedule 1 of the Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Regulation 2012 (Cth) strongly indicate that the matter that should be heard in the Federal Circuit Court, which is the natural, generally more convenient, and less expensive forum for a case of this kind. The expense of the proceedings and convenience are, of course, a matter to which the Court must have regard in determining the question of transfer. I accept, moreover, that the level of judicial involvement in the proceeding to date does not warrant the retention of the proceeding by this Court. 15 Another matter to which this Court must have regard is whether a proceeding would be determined more quickly if transferred. The applicant's originating application was filed in January 2019. If the matter remains in this Court it is unlikely to be heard in the next eighteen months or so. The information in the respondent's submissions indicates that the matter will probably be heard more quickly in the Federal Circuit Court. This is confirmed by inquiries made by my Chambers with the Registry of this Court which indicated that the likely time to trial in the Federal Circuit Court would be eight to nine months. I do not accept, as the applicant submitted, that the procedural steps involved in the transfer will unduly delay the proceedings. Considerations of delay do not weigh in favour of the transfer of this proceeding. 16 It may also be accepted that the Federal Circuit Court labours under a heavy burden. Having regard, however, to the current resources of the Federal Circuit Court, to the likely time involved in the hearing of the matter, and to the nature of the issues in dispute, it seem to me that the resources of the Federal Circuit Court are sufficient to hear and determine the matter. 17 It may be accepted that the wishes of the applicant that the proceeding remain in this Court are a relevant factor to be taken into account. So too are the wishes of the respondent. 18 The more general matter to which this Court must have regard is whether the transfer of the proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court would be in the interests of the administration of justice. Whether the matter could be determined more quickly if it were transferred is, naturally enough, relevant to whether or not the administration of justice would be furthered by such a transfer. So too is the matter of the costs to the parties when measured against the issues in question. As the respondent submitted, protecting the ability of the Federal Court to fulfil its role as a Court responsible for the interpretation and development of the law of the Commonwealth is also important. These considerations indicate that the administration of justice is better served by the transfer of the proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court. 19 For the reasons stated, in all the circumstances, it seems that the proceeding should be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court. I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kenny. Associate: Dated: 5 February 2020