Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited [2015] HCA 28

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ

GRANT TOMLINSON APPELLANT

AND

RAMSEY FOOD PROCESSING PTY LIMITED RESPONDENT

Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited [2015] HCA 28 12 August 2015 S7/2015

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 21 July 2014.

3. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal to determine the issue raised by the respondent's notice of contention in this Court.

4. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court and of the appeal to date in the Court of Appeal.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

D M J Bennett QC with R I Goodridge for the appellant (instructed by Monaco Solicitors)

B W Walker SC with K W Andrews for the respondent (instructed by Colin Biggers & Paisley Solicitors)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited

Estoppel – Issue estoppel – Appellant employed at abattoir operated by respondent – Appellant subsequently employed by third party providing labour services to respondent – Appellant complained to Fair Work Ombudsman that entitlements not paid upon termination of employment – Fair Work Ombudsman commenced proceedings in Federal Court of Australia against respondent – Federal Court determined respondent, not third party, was appellant's employer – Appellant commenced proceedings claiming damages from respondent for personal injury sustained at abattoir – Appellant argued third party, not respondent, was his employer – Respondent argued appellant was issue estopped by reason of Federal Court proceedings from denying that respondent was appellant's employer – Whether appellant was issue estopped by reason of declarations and orders made in Federal Court proceedings – Whether appellant was privy in interest with Fair Work Ombudsman in Federal Court proceedings.