Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2023] FCA 331 Appeal from: Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2022] FCA 1166
File number: WAD 217 of 2022
Judgment of: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 3 April 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 12 April 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Australia - where primary judge struck out paragraphs of statement of claim with leave to re-plead - where applicant alleges primary judge adopted an overly technical approach to the expression of pleadings - where applicant alleges substantial injustice - application dismissed
Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Incorporated (1981) 148 CLR 170 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2019] FCA 1284 Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1993) 33 FCR 397 Nationwide News Pty Limited v Rush [2018] FCAFC 70 Oztech Pty Ltd v Public Trustee of Queensland [2019] FCAFC 102; (2019) 269 FCR 349 Sabapathy v Jetstar Airways [2021] FCAFC 25; (2021) 283 FCR 348
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: Western Australia
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