Miller v CIMIC Group Limited (formerly 'Leighton Holdings Limited') [2015] FCA 587

Miller v CIMIC Group Limited (formerly 'Leighton Holdings Limited') [2015] FCA 587

Mr Miller's claims against CIMIC Group had no reasonable prospects and were foredoomed to fail because no contractual or other relevant relationship with CIMIC Group was identified and he had no standing under s 1317J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to seek relief for alleged contraventions of ss 180 or 181. His Corporations Act claims against Thiess likewise had no reasonable prospects. His remaining claims against Thiess were an abuse of process because they related to the same factual dispute being litigated in the Federal Circuit Court, attempted to circumvent or pre-empt that proceeding, and coincidentally breached s 32AA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) concerning...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment / First Directions Hearing
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for both respondents against the applicant, with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'no Reasonable Prospects of Success' 'abuse of Process' 'standing to Seek Civil Penalty Declarations' 'associated Matters' 'employment Contract Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'employment Law'] ['summary Judgment' 'no Reasonable Prospects of Success' 'abuse of Process' 'standing to Seek Civil Penalty Declarations' 'associated Matters' 'employment Contract Claims']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment / First Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding against CIMIC Group.' 'Whether the applicant had standing to seek relief under s 1317E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for alleged contraventions of ss 180 or 181.' 'Whether the claims against Thiess duplicated or circumvented the Federal Circuit Court proceeding and were an abuse of process.' 'Whether commencing the proceeding breached s 32AA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) because associated matters were being pursued in the Federal Circuit Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Miller's claims against CIMIC Group had no reasonable prospects and were foredoomed to fail because no contractual or other relevant relationship with CIMIC Group was identified and he had no standing under s 1317J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to seek relief for alleged contraventions of ss 180 or 181. His Corporations Act claims against Thiess likewise had no reasonable prospects. His remaining claims against Thiess were an abuse of process because they related to the same factual dispute being litigated in the Federal Circuit Court, attempted to circumvent or pre-empt that proceeding, and coincidentally breached s 32AA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) concerning...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for both respondents against the applicant, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment be entered for the first respondent against the applicant under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Judgment be entered for the second respondent against the applicant under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011...