King v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1110

King v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1110

The amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because Asciano was not the applicants' employer and was not a party to the Deed or Agreement, while Patrick Projects no longer owed the applicants ongoing employment-related obligations after their employment had ended. The proceeding was also an abuse of process because the substance of the training dispute had already been pursued before the Fair Work Commission and the Full Bench of the Commission. The applicants had already had opportunities to plead a viable claim, none was discernible, and the proceeding should not be further entertained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Fair Work Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief and to Strike Out an Amended Statement of Claim and Originating Application / Interlocutory Applications; Strike Out and Dismissal
Outcome
The amended statement of claim was struck out, the applicants' interlocutory application was dismissed, and the originating application was dismissed, with liberty to the respondents to apply on costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleading' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'enterprise Agreement' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'self Represented Litigants' 'leave to Re Plead']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'fair Work'] ['strike Out of Pleading' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'enterprise Agreement' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'self Represented Litigants' 'leave to Re Plead']

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

Fair Work Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief and to Strike Out an Amended Statement of Claim and Originating Application / Interlocutory Applications; Strike Out and Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action under r 16.21(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the proceeding was an abuse of process under r 16.21(f) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicants should be permitted to further amend or re-plead their statement of claim.' "Whether the applicants' interlocutory application for injunctive relief should be dismissed if the originating proceeding was dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because Asciano was not the applicants' employer and was not a party to the Deed or Agreement, while Patrick Projects no longer owed the applicants ongoing employment-related obligations after their employment had ended. The proceeding was also an abuse of process because the substance of the training dispute had already been pursued before the Fair Work Commission and the Full Bench of the Commission. The applicants had already had opportunities to plead a viable claim, none was discernible, and the proceeding should not be further entertained.

Court Disposition

The amended statement of claim was struck out, the applicants' interlocutory application was dismissed, and the originating application was dismissed, with liberty to the respondents to apply on costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended statement of claim dated 15 April 2016 be struck out.' "The applicants' interlocutory application dated 4 May 2016 be dismissed." "The applicants' originating application be dismissed." "The respondents' have liberty to apply on the question of costs within 14 days of these orders."]