Rossetti v Aus Gold Mining Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1104

Rossetti v Aus Gold Mining Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1104

Leave was granted to the respondents to file an amended defence notwithstanding the lateness and previous non-compliance, as the new defence is important, the delay was satisfactorily explained by legal advice, and refusal would result in multiplicity of proceedings. However, strict case management orders and a broad costs order (including costs of the interlocutory application) are necessary to mitigate prejudice to the applicant and reflect the respondents’ unreasonable conduct.

Parties
Applicant: Lee Rossetti; First Respondent: Aus Gold Mining Group Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Sha Zou
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Leave granted to amend defence; hearing dates vacated; respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs; strict case management orders imposed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Pleadings, Costs in Fair Work Act Proceedings, Compliance With Court Orders, Vacation of Hearing Dates
Practice and Procedure Employment Law Leave to Amend Pleadings Costs in Fair Work Act Proceedings Compliance With Court Orders Vacation of Hearing Dates

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Rossetti

Applicant

Aus Gold Mining Group Pty Limited

First Respondent

Sha Zou

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the respondents to amend their defence at a late stage
  2. 2 Whether hearing dates should be vacated as a result
  3. 3 Whether costs should be ordered against the respondents under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted to the respondents to file an amended defence notwithstanding the lateness and previous non-compliance, as the new defence is important, the delay was satisfactorily explained by legal advice, and refusal would result in multiplicity of proceedings. However, strict case management orders and a broad costs order (including costs of the interlocutory application) are necessary to mitigate prejudice to the applicant and reflect the respondents’ unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to amend defence; hearing dates vacated; respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs; strict case management orders imposed.

Orders

  • Respondents granted leave to file an amended defence by 17 July 2019.
  • Hearing dates of 1 and 2 August 2019 vacated.