Railtrain Services Pty Ltd v Kinsela [2023] NSWDC 179

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Railtrain Services Pty Ltd v Kinsela [2023] NSWDC 179 Hearing dates: 26 May 2023 Date of orders: 26 May 2023 Decision date: 26 May 2023 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraphs 50 - 52 Catchwords: APPEALS & REVIEWS – civil claim in Small Claims Division of Local Court – whether denial of procedural fairness – no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) ss 39, 41 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 14.7, 36.16 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Railtrain Serviced Pty Ltd (plaintiff) E Kinsela (defendant) Representation: Mr P Stringthorpe, Counsel for the plaintiff Mr E Kinsela, in person File Number(s): 2023/00013317 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Local Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Small Claims Division Date of Decision: 21 December 2022 Before: Magistrate Thomas File Number(s): 2023/00013317

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court of New South Wales in Parkes made on 21 December 2022. By the decision, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff's ultimate submission is that the decision should be set aside and remitted back to the Local Court (to a different Magistrate) for determination.

The claim in the Local Court 1. On 31 August 2022, the plaintiff commenced the Local Court proceeding, by which it brought a money claim in the Local Court, seeking payment of the sum of $10,000 allegedly owed as a debt by the defendant pursuant to a bonding agreement entered into on or about 4 January 2022. 2. The plaintiff contends that the bonding agreement was collateral to a written employment contract with the defendant, dated 10 January 2022. Both of these documents were referred to (paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim). The defendant, in his defence, admitted the allegations. By the bonding agreement, it was said, the defendant was required to pay a liquidated sum to the plaintiff if the defendant voluntarily terminated the plaintiff's employment within a specified period, from the commencement of employment, on the basis that the plaintiff had provided training to the defendant at no cost and the liquidated sum payable represented reimbursement for the costs of that training. 3. The statement of claim referred to a number of attachments. Attachments 'A' and 'B' were the employment services agreement (between plaintiff and defendant) and a bonding agreement, respectively. But the statement of claim that was filed did not actually attach those (or other) documents referred to in the pleading. 4. The plaintiff relies upon an affidavit of Mr Pager, affirmed on 23 February 2023.