Ford v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1131

Ford v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1131

Leave is granted for the applicant to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim including par 70, as the amendment corrects timing and is within the scope of the original complaint. Leave is refused for pars 14(a) and (b) in their proposed form because those allegations predate the period identified in the complaint and are different in substance from the complaint to the Commission, which does not warrant amendment under s 46PO(3).

Parties
Applicant: Richard Jamie Lee Ford; First Respondent: Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Michael Rafferty; Third Respondent: Brendan Waldock; Fourth Respondent: Wade Phillips; Fifth Respondent: George Mole; Sixth Respondent: Saxena Johnson Jnr; Seventh Respondent: Mark Chan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim at Commencement of Trial
Outcome
Leave granted to file Further Amended Statement of Claim with par 70; leave refused for pars 14(a) and (b) in current form.
Legal Topics
Amendments to Pleadings, Sexual Harassment, Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) S 46 PO
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Amendments to Pleadings Sexual Harassment Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) S 46 PO

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Jamie Lee Ford

Applicant

Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited

First Respondent

Michael Rafferty

Second Respondent

Brendan Waldock

Third Respondent

Wade Phillips

Fourth Respondent

George Mole

Fifth Respondent

Saxena Johnson Jnr

Sixth Respondent

Mark Chan

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim at Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments to the statement of claim should be allowed under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) and Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.53
  2. 2 Whether the amendments allege conduct 'the same as' or 'arising out of the same acts' as the terminated AHRC complaint

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is granted for the applicant to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim including par 70, as the amendment corrects timing and is within the scope of the original complaint. Leave is refused for pars 14(a) and (b) in their proposed form because those allegations predate the period identified in the complaint and are different in substance from the complaint to the Commission, which does not warrant amendment under s 46PO(3).

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file Further Amended Statement of Claim with par 70; leave refused for pars 14(a) and (b) in current form.

Orders

  • The applicant have leave to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with these reasons.