Posted Jun 5, 2020, 3:40 AM UTC
I like para 68 - Given the very small nature of the case, the fact that it should never have been brought in this Court and a suspicion that between them Mr Paea and Ms Ross would have no idea what they were talking about, it seemed to me at the time that it would be useful both to Ms Ross and to me to have someone with legal qualifications involved in the case. I have come to regret this decision.
Personal favourite at [67]: ‘To be frank, Ms Ross has succeeded despite the efforts of Mr Johnston on her behalf. I found nothing he said to me of value. He was also to my observation rude to Mr Paea which was quite unnecessary and certainly unhelpful.’
Yeah, good luck to him getting paid after that!
74 The conduct of a legal practice in New South Wales by a person who is not a qualified entity is an offence: Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), s 10(1). Despite Mr Johnston’s submission that I should not take this step, I will send a copy of these reasons to the President of the Law Society of New South Wales.
Mic drop.
Zing!
13 Ms Ross’ case was that the matter was governed by the Restaurant Industry Award 2010 (‘the Award’). I accept this submission although Mr Johnston was not able to give any meaningful explanation for why this might be so. Mr Paea appeared to accept in his affidavit that the Award applied. In the end I decided not to ask why Mr Paea thought this was so, since it seemed to me unlikely that he would be better informed than Mr Johnston.
14 So here we go...
All the other drama aside, how common is it for the judge to give what is essentially legal advice to a party in the reasons?
> 66 That leaves two loose threads. The first of these is Mrs Paea, the Second Respondent. She was successful in being excused from the hearing against her husband on the grounds of health. The claim against her remains unresolved. Based on the material I have seen (which may be incomplete) this claim appears problematic but if Ms Ross wishes to pursue it, that is her right. However, the pursuit of cases which have little merit can have costs consequences and Ms Ross should understand that. I strongly counsel Ms Ross against the further pursuit of Mrs Paea. The time for a line to be drawn under this series of unfortunate incidents has arrived.
Happens more than you would think. One interesting example is Daley v The Queen B57/1999 [2000] HCATrans 705
Also, Re Stubberfield [1996] HCATrans 244 (McHugh J):
HIS HONOUR: Your argument was rejected back in '94 by Dean and Toohey JJ and myself, and it is just really a re-run.
MR STUBBERFIELD: No, there is a - - -
HIS HONOUR: Mr Stubberfield, I ask you - I would implore you to give serious consideration to this course that you have embarked on about pursuing all these things. It - litigation destroys people.
MR STUBBERFIELD: It is destroying us, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Well, I - - -
MR STUBBERFIELD: And not - not only - - -
HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Stubberfield, why do you not - assuming you have got losses, why do you not cut your losses and put an end to it and get on with your life?
MR STUBBERFIELD: Your Honour - - -
HIS HONOUR: Because, otherwise, you just become obsessed with this litigation , it is expensive, it is - and it just consumes people. It is - it - I will not say it breaks my heart, but it is - - -
MR STUBBERFIELD: Your Honour - - -
HIS HONOUR: - - - it does not - I - again and again we see litigants in person, in effect, butting their heads against orders of courts where they have really got no basis at all, and it is just waste of money and often the ruination of - - -
The taking of statements where you even reproduce the spelling mistakes in one statement over to the other is not such as engenders great confidence in the result, is it, Mr Byrne?
that always looks dodgy
Clearly the judges need our Auto Moderator.
The Judgement has a mistake because Ms Ross was also entitled to annual leave loading under the Award.
What a wanker...
Who? The Applicant? The respondent? The “employee advocate”? The judge? The Medico? The MP? Be more constructive in your criticism bro.
[deleted]
Quality sass at [15]: "On the facts of this case, it might appear obvious that Mr Paea and Ms Ross were, respectively, employer and employee and hence that the condition was satisfied. But such a process of reasoning would proceed on the assumption that the references to ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ in s 47 mean what they say. Where Commonwealth statutes are concerned this is rarely a safe assumption..."