Watson v Greenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 169

Watson v Greenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 169

The Court made consequential orders reflecting the parties' agreement and its resolution of the disputed matters: paragraph 57V was struck out because it appeared to be of the same character as paragraphs 57A to 57U; paragraph 92 was not struck out so the applicant could later argue about the costs provisions of the new legislation; the applicant's proposed Note was refused because it might pre-empt a future leave to amend application; and further amended pleadings were left for the docket judge to manage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Fair Work Division Proceeding / Consequential Orders Following Judgment of the Full Court Delivered on 30 August 2023; Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Consequential orders made; specified pleading paragraphs struck out; judgment for the respondents on specified claims; proceeding to be listed for case management before the docket judge.
Legal Topics
['consequential Orders' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'dismissal of Claims' 'case Management' 'leave to Amend']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['consequential Orders' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'dismissal of Claims' 'case Management' 'leave to Amend']

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

Practice and Procedure; Fair Work Division Proceeding / Consequential Orders Following Judgment of the Full Court Delivered on 30 August 2023; Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What consequential orders should be made to give effect to the Full Court's reasons delivered on 30 August 2023." 'Whether paragraph 57V of the amended statement of claim should be struck out.' 'Whether paragraph 92 of the amended statement of claim should be struck out.' "Whether the orders should include the applicant's proposed Note preserving reliance on matters in any new pleading based on the former provisions." 'Whether orders should be made for filing a further amended originating application and further amended statement of claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made consequential orders reflecting the parties' agreement and its resolution of the disputed matters: paragraph 57V was struck out because it appeared to be of the same character as paragraphs 57A to 57U; paragraph 92 was not struck out so the applicant could later argue about the costs provisions of the new legislation; the applicant's proposed Note was refused because it might pre-empt a future leave to amend application; and further amended pleadings were left for the docket judge to manage.

Court Disposition

Consequential orders made; specified pleading paragraphs struck out; judgment for the respondents on specified claims; proceeding to be listed for case management before the docket judge.

Orders

  • ['The following paragraphs of the amended statement of claim filed on 25 July 2022, be struck out: 57A-57U; 57V; 71-77; 78-81; 82-86; 86A to 86L; 91(b) and (c) (as against each respondent); and 91(ea), 91(eb) and 91(ec) (as against each respondent).' "There be judgment for the respondents in respect of the...