Rochecouste v Tasman Rope Access Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 1161

Rochecouste v Tasman Rope Access Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 1161

The application was late because, but for the respondents' conduct and proposed amendments, the claims would likely already have been heard. Some amendments were permitted where they clarified ambiguity, particularised an existing issue, or allowed a genuine controversy to be determined without demonstrated real prejudice to the applicants. The general proposed amendments about hours offered but declined over several years were refused because their purpose was obscure, they would introduce significant new issues and likely delay, and they were out of proportion to the dispute. Despite an inadequate explanation for the admissions, the respondents were permitted to withdraw admissions of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Fair Work Claims / Amended Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Defences
Outcome
Amended interlocutory application for leave to amend the defences allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Defences' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'late Amendment' 'adverse Action' 'fair Work Act Claims' 'costs']
['employment and Industrial Relations' 'practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Defences' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'late Amendment' 'adverse Action' 'fair Work Act Claims' 'costs']

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 Claims / Amended Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' further application for leave to amend the defences was late." 'Whether the respondents should be permitted to withdraw admissions concerning formation of the contracts of employment.' 'Whether the respondents should be permitted to plead that the applicants were offered work over the course of their employment that they did not take up.' 'Whether the respondents should be permitted to withdraw admissions of unlawful adverse action based on stand down discrimination and reduction in hours discrimination.' 'What costs orders should be made in relation to the amended interlocutory application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was late because, but for the respondents' conduct and proposed amendments, the claims would likely already have been heard. Some amendments were permitted where they clarified ambiguity, particularised an existing issue, or allowed a genuine controversy to be determined without demonstrated real prejudice to the applicants. The general proposed amendments about hours offered but declined over several years were refused because their purpose was obscure, they would introduce significant new issues and likely delay, and they were out of proportion to the dispute. Despite an inadequate explanation for the admissions, the respondents were permitted to withdraw admissions of...

Court Disposition

Amended interlocutory application for leave to amend the defences allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['The amended interlocutory application for leave to amend the defences be allowed in part.' 'On or before 4 October 2021, the respondents do file and serve minutes of proposed amended defence that reflect the reasons on the amended interlocutory application.' 'On or before 11 October 2021, the applicants do file...