Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Edwards v Golden Cockerel Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 152 File number(s):
Judgment of: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 4 March 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for no case to answer – Whether respondent required to elect whether to call evidence before making no case application – Respondent not required to elect whether or not to call evidence –Whether respondent had case to answer in respect of substantive application – Where large parts of amended statement of claim objected to or no longer relied on and applicant led no evidence other than her own affidavit - Application for strike out of amended statement of claim – Amended statement of claim struck out in its entirety – Substantive application dismissed INDUSTRIAL LAW - Where applicant claimed breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) related to direction by respondent to receive COVID-19 vaccination – Where applicant refused to receive COVID-19 vaccination – claim of religious reasons
Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 (Cth) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 351, 361 Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s 13 Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Sch 1 (Australian Privacy Principles) ss 3.3, 3.5 Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.21 (1)(b)-(f) Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 7, 8, 10 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 17(c) Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ss 9, 10 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
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