Zirk-Sadowski v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2023] FCA 897

Zirk-Sadowski v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2023] FCA 897

Default judgment and self-executing orders were refused because failure to file a genuine steps statement does not invalidate the proceedings or entitle the applicant to judgment, and there was no basis in authority for awarding default judgment solely on this ground. Directions for summary judgment and alternative timetabling orders were refused as the preconditions for such applications had not been met and procedures existed in the Rules. Requests for access to Microsoft Teams recordings and amendments to case management were likewise refused for want of sufficient justification.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Jan Zirk-Sadowski; First Respondent: University of New South Wales; Second Respondent: Fair Work Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Final Hearing
Outcome
Applications and requests refused; interlocutory application for default judgment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Summary Judgment, Case Management, Civil Dispute Resolution Act, Genuine Steps Statement Requirement, Judicial Review
Practice and Procedure Administrative Law Default Judgment Summary Judgment Case Management Civil Dispute Resolution Act Genuine Steps Statement Requirement Judicial Review

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Jan Zirk-Sadowski

Applicant

University of New South Wales

First Respondent

Fair Work Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant entitled to default judgment due to respondents’ failure to file a genuine steps statement
  2. 2 Whether Court should make a self-executing order in relation to genuine steps statements
  3. 3 Whether Court should grant directions or leave for summary judgment application

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment and self-executing orders were refused because failure to file a genuine steps statement does not invalidate the proceedings or entitle the applicant to judgment, and there was no basis in authority for awarding default judgment solely on this ground. Directions for summary judgment and alternative timetabling orders were refused as the preconditions for such applications had not been met and procedures existed in the Rules. Requests for access to Microsoft Teams recordings and amendments to case management were likewise refused for want of sufficient justification.

Court Disposition

Applications and requests refused; interlocutory application for default judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's interlocutory application for default judgment pursuant to r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dismissed.
  • Applicant's requests for directions concerning summary judgment and timetabling refused.