DP World Sydney Limited v Maritime Union of Australia (No 1) [2013] FCA 278

DP World Sydney Limited v Maritime Union of Australia (No 1) [2013] FCA 278

Although r 16.45(2)(a) was satisfied in the case of particulars (b) and (d), r 16.45(2)(b) was not. The respondents did not require further particulars to conduct their case at this stage, so the power to order particulars was not enlivened.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Further and Better Particulars / Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'particulars' 'fair Work Act' 'federal Court Procedure']
['practice and Procedure' 'industrial Law'] ['pleadings' 'particulars' 'fair Work Act' 'federal Court Procedure']

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 Further and Better Particulars / Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the particulars supplied by the applicant regarding loss and damage are sufficient' 'Whether the respondents are entitled to further and better particulars under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.44 and 16.45']

Ratio Decidendi

Although r 16.45(2)(a) was satisfied in the case of particulars (b) and (d), r 16.45(2)(b) was not. The respondents did not require further particulars to conduct their case at this stage, so the power to order particulars was not enlivened.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs.']