Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Olson v Keefe (No 3) [2018] FCA 2001 File number: NSD 1498 of 2016
Judge: BROMWICH J
Date of judgment: 18 December 2018
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to file a further amended statement of claim (FASOC) – where claims arise out of an employment relationship dispute – where respondents object to leave being granted on basis that aspects of proposed FASOC are liable to strike out or summary dismissal for being fatally defective – whether unconscionability claim discloses any reasonable cause of action – whether profit interest claim can proceed – whether additional implied terms claim can proceed – whether claim based on financial reporting contraventions can proceed – held: unconscionability case insufficiently pleaded and does not rise higher than bare narrative and conclusory allegation – held: leave to bring unconscionability case in its entirety refused – held: leave to bring other additional claims relied upon refused – held: leave to file FASOC refused
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2) ss 2, 18, 20, 21, 31 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 1317AC(2), 1317AC(3) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.01, 16.21, 16.43 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 51AA
Cases cited: Australia & New Zealand Banking Group v Karam [2005] NSWCA 344; 64 NSWLR 149 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall [2018] FCAFC 83; 277 IR 75 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90; [2013] ATPR 42-447 Australian Parking and Revenue Control Pty Ltd v Reino International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1273 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2013] FCA 641; 220 FCR 256 Banque Commerciale S.A., En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 Bridgewater v Leahy [1998] HCA 66; 194 CLR 457 Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1150 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 Commercial Bank of Australia Limited v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32; 253 CLR 169 Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25; 250 CLR 392, Olson v Keefe [2017] FCA 101 Olson v Keefe (No 2) [2017] FCA 1168; 122 ACSR 395 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] FCAFC 50; 236 FCR 199
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