Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fair Work Ombudsman v Al Hilfi (No 2) [2013] FCA 16 Citation: Fair Work Ombudsman v Al Hilfi (No 2) [2013] FCA 16
Parties: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v AHMAD HAMID MOHAMMED AL HILFI, NIDAL ALBAROUKI, CLENCY FERRIERE and COLES SUPERMARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 45 004 189 708 FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v AYAM RAHMAH AL BASRY, NIDAL ALBAROUKI, CLENCY FERRIERE and COLES SUPERMARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 45 004 189 708
File numbers: SAD 27 of 2012 SAD 109 of 2012
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 17 January 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – opposition by fourth respondent to application by Fair Work Ombudsman for leave to file amended pleadings – where Fair Work Ombudsman seeks orders and declarations against fourth respondent based on its involvement in contravention of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether the fourth respondent has fair notice of the case – whether pleading is evasive or ambiguous – whether pleading is likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceeding – whether the Fair Work Ombudsman pleaded the necessary particulars to give the fourth respondent fair notice of the case to be made against it. Held: The application for leave to file the amended pleadings is allowed subject to three matters outlined in paragraphs 19, 26 and 28 of the reasons.
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 12, 550, 793 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 84 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 349 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Rules 16.21, 16.41, 16.45
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate