Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tiver v University of South Australia [2014] FCA 1114 Citation: Tiver v University of South Australia [2014] FCA 1114
Parties: FLEUR TIVER v THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
File number: SAD 333 of 2013
Judge: WHITE J
Date of judgment: 17 October 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – application by respondent to strike out parts of statement of claim pursuant to r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 – whether pleadings failed to disclose reasonable cause of action – whether pleadings evasive, ambiguous and likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment and delay
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 546 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 16.02, 16.03, 16.21
Cases cited: Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 Holcon Australia Pty Ltd v Corporation of the Town of Walkerville [2007] SASC 437
Date of hearing: 16 September 2014
Place: Adelaide
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 92
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Mitchell
Solicitors for the Applicant: Duncan Basheer Hannon
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Bleby SC
Solicitors for the Respondent: Fox Tucker Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY fair work DIVISION SAD 333 of 2013
BETWEEN: FLEUR TIVER
Applicant
AND: THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE: WHITE J DATE OF ORDER: 17 OCTOBER 2014 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
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