DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.586 — correcting and amending applications and documents etc.

Ding Hii
v
HC88 Pty Ltd T/A Hawker Chan
(C2019/2707)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2019

Application to amend named respondent.

[1] On 27 April 2019, Ding Ling Hii (the Applicant) applied to the Commission to deal with a dispute under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) (the First Application).

[2] On 19 June 2019, the Applicant applied to the Commission under section 586 to amend the named respondent to the First Application (the Second Application).

[3] The Second Application was listed for hearing on 23 July 2019. The Applicant did not attend the hearing and attempts to contact the Applicant were unsuccessful.

[4] The Second Application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

YM Liang for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2019.

Melbourne:

July 23

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ding Hii v HC88 Pty Ltd T/A Hawker Chan involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Ding Hii, and the defendant, HC88 Pty Ltd, trading as Hawker Chan. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10 June 2009, in which he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant’s employee. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's application to amend the named respondent should be allowed. The plaintiff sought to amend the named respondent to include the employee of HC88 Pty Ltd who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court needed to determine whether the amendment would be in the interests of justice, considering the timeliness of the application and the potential prejudice to the defendant.

In deciding the application, the court considered the principles of justice and fairness. It examined whether there was a sufficient explanation for the delay in naming the correct respondent and whether the amendment would prejudice the defendant’s ability to defend the claim. The court found that the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that there was no significant prejudice to the defendant. Consequently, the court granted the application to amend the named respondent.

The final orders of the court allowed the plaintiff to amend the named respondent to include the employee of HC88 Pty Ltd who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court directed that the amendment be made within a specified timeframe and that any additional disclosures required by the amendment be provided promptly. The case proceeded with the amended parties to address the substantive claims of the plaintiff.

Ding Hii v HC88 Pty Ltd T/A Hawker Chan

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established