Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2006] HCATrans 382 (3 August 2006)

--

Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2006] HCATrans 382 (3 August 2006)

Last Updated: 8 September 2006

[2006] HCATrans 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M124 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MOHAMMADALI SALLEHPOUR

Applicant

and

FRONTIER SOFTWARE PTY LTD

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 3 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.14 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: This application is brought from a single justice of the Federal Court sitting as the Full Court. The applicant sought an order under s 170CR of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of an alleged contravention of s 170CK(2)(a) and (f) of it. The applicant suffers a depressive illness and was absent from work from time to time before his employment was terminated by his employer, the respondent.

In the Federal Court (Marshall J), the applicant contended that he had been dismissed for a reason or reasons prohibited by s 170CK of the Act. The Federal Court examined all of the reasons which the applicant advanced as the prohibited ones but found that none of them had been made out. Indeed, the Federal Court made an affirmative finding that the applicant had unreasonably failed to co-operate with the respondent.

The applicant then made an application to the Federal Court (Weinberg J) for leave to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time. His Honour granted the applicant an adjournment of three months on condition that within that period he file a properly drawn notice of appeal of sufficient particularity: otherwise the application for an extension of time would stand dismissed.

On the final day of the three months the applicant filed a barely intelligible notice. It contained no arguable basis upon which an appeal might succeed. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

There is a question in this case whether the applicant is entitled to appeal or to apply for leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Weinberg J sitting, as his Honour was, alone. It is unnecessary to resolve that question however because his Honour’s conclusion as to the hopelessness of the applicant’s case on appeal is correct.

The application must therefore be dismissed. Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.16 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED