Crispe v Bank of Queensland Limited

In *Crispe v Bank of Queensland Limited*, heard by Judge Jarrett, the applicant employee sought to strike out certain paragraphs of the respondent employer's statement of claim. The dispute concerned allegations of adverse action taken against the applicant under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), specifically relating to the applicant's inquiries about his employment conditions and subsequent dismissal. The employer argued that the applicant's pleading failed to disclose a sufficient cause of action and was embarrassing.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's statement of claim, particularly paragraphs 13 to 14 and 21 to 26, pleaded facts sufficient to disclose a cause of action for adverse action under the *Fair Work Act*. This involved assessing whether the applicant had adequately particularised his workplace right to make inquiries and whether the employer's alleged dismissal was for a prohibited reason, namely the exercise of that workplace right. The court also considered whether the pleading was so vague or lacking in material facts as to embarrass the respondent.

Judge Jarrett applied the principles outlined in *Adachi v Qantas Airways Limited*, which establish that a pleading can be struck out if it is embarrassing, causes prejudice, or fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action by omitting necessary material facts or failing to define issues with sufficient clarity. The court found that the applicant's allegations regarding his inquiries about fuel and parking allowances and pay grade review, and his subsequent dismissal, were sufficiently particularised to constitute an arguable cause of action under the *Fair Work Act*. The court also noted that the applicant's claims under sections 18 and 31 of the Australian Consumer Law were arguable.

Consequently, the respondent's application to strike out the applicant's statement of claim was dismissed. The court also ordered that a date be fixed for mediation between the parties, consistent with previous orders.