Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Taj v Western Health (No 3) [2014] FCA 781 Citation: Taj v Western Health (No 3) [2014] FCA 781
Parties: DR SALAHUDDIN TAJ v WESTERN HEALTH and ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC
File number: VID 1031 of 2013
Judge: BROMBERG J
Date of judgment: 14 July 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether statement of claim should be struck out – whether application should be summarily dismissed
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 351, 352
Cases cited: Taj v Western Health (No 2) [2014] FCA 339
Date of hearing: 14 July 2014
Place: Melbourne
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 25
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr JRM Tracey
Solicitor for the First Respondent: TressCox Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr G Pauline
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Service Industry Advisory Group Pty Ltd
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY FAIR WORK DIVISION VID 1031 of 2013
BETWEEN: DR SALAHUDDIN TAJ
Applicant
AND: WESTERN HEALTH
First Respondent
ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BROMBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 14 JULY 2014 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Amended Statement of Claim dated 8 May 2014 be struck out. 2. The First Respondent's interlocutory application of 28 May 2014 and the Second Respondent's interlocutory application of 26 May 2014 be otherwise dismissed. 3. The Applicant pay the costs of and incidental to the First Respondent's and Second Respondent's interlocutory applications. 4. The Applicant have leave to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim on or before 19 September 2014. 5. Should the Applicant not file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim in compliance with Order 4, the Applicant's Originating Application be dismissed. 6. Should the Applicant file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with Order 4, the matter be listed for a further directions hearing on a date to be fixed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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