Naroth v Innovative Hair Loss Solutions Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 941

Naroth v Innovative Hair Loss Solutions Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 941

The appellant was granted leave to substitute only those proposed grounds that could properly be advanced on appeal, including factual challenges and a discrete statutory-duty issue under the OSH Act. Leave was refused for grounds lacking merit or appellate relevance, including the proposed implied-term ground based on OSH Act duties, costs and procedural complaints, a ground concerning a claim not brought, and complaints about the respondents' lawyers' conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Amend Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to amend grounds of appeal granted in part; application otherwise adjourned.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Grounds of Appeal' 'challenges to Factual Findings' 'occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (wa) Duties' 'implied Terms in Employment Contract' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']
['employment Law' 'occupational Safety and Health' 'contract Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Grounds of Appeal' 'challenges to Factual Findings' 'occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (wa) Duties' 'implied Terms in Employment Contract' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']

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

Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Amend Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be granted leave to amend her grounds of appeal by substituting proposed grounds for the existing grounds.' 'Whether proposed grounds concerning OSH Act statutory duties implied into the employment contract had merit.' "Whether proposed grounds concerning costs, conduct of the trial, claims not brought, and conduct of the respondents' lawyers were appropriate grounds of appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was granted leave to substitute only those proposed grounds that could properly be advanced on appeal, including factual challenges and a discrete statutory-duty issue under the OSH Act. Leave was refused for grounds lacking merit or appellate relevance, including the proposed implied-term ground based on OSH Act duties, costs and procedural complaints, a ground concerning a claim not brought, and complaints about the respondents' lawyers' conduct.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend grounds of appeal granted in part; application otherwise adjourned.

Orders

  • ['The appellant be granted leave to amend her existing grounds of appeal by substituting grounds 1, 2, 3.1, 4-7, 10-17, 19-20 and 22 as set out in her interlocutory application dated 6 June 2013.' "The costs of the appellant's interlocutory application dated 6 June 2013, including the costs of the hearing of 12...