Legal Research
Cases
Doyle v Emperor Energy Limited (No.2)

Doyle v Emperor Energy Limited (No.2)

Link copied

Case Copied 8 December 2017 30 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DOYLE v EMPEROR ENERGY LIMITED (No.2)

[2017] FCCA 3088

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Costs application – application summarily dismissed – whether substantive application instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause – whether unreasonable act or omission – whether caused respondent to incur costs – what costs order should be made – costs order.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.570, 570(2)(a)

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.21.02

Doyle v Oil Basins Limited [2017] FCCA 2758
Ryan v Primesafe [2015] FCA 8
Rentuza v Westside Auto Wholesale [2009] FMCA 1022
Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.3) [2007] FCA 879
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke (2008) 170 FCR 574
Ashby v Slipper (No.2) [2014] FCAFC 67
Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd [2011] FCA 395
Kanan v Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union [1992] FCA 539
Baker v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd (No.2)[2014] FCAFC 166
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Corinthian Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd (No.2)[2014] FCA 351
R v Moore; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia[1978] HCA 51
Spotless Services Australia Ltd v Marsh [2004] FCAFC 155
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No.2)[2015] FCAFC 97
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

Applicant:

NEIL FRANCIS JAMES DOYLE

Respondent:

EMPEROR ENERGY LIMITED (ACN 006 024 764)

File Number:

MLG 2174 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge O'Sullivan

Hearing date:

8 December 2017

Date of Last Submission:

8 December 2017

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

8 December 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms A. Robertson
Solicitors for the Applicant	Hall & Wilcox

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr A. Broadfoot QC

Solicitors for the Respondent

Hopgood Ganim Lawyers

ORDERS

Within 21 days the applicant should pay the respondent’s costs fixed at $5,322.50.
The name of the respondent be changed to Emperor Energy Limited.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 2174 of 2017

NEIL FRANCIS JAMES DOYLE

Applicant

And

EMPEROR ENGERY LIMITED (ACN 006 024 764)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

Introduction

These reasons concern an application for costs by Oil Basins Limited (as it was then known).
On 10 October 2017 Neil Francis James Doyle (“the applicant”) commenced proceedings in this Court against Oil Basins Limited (as it was then known) (ACN 006 024 764) (“the respondent”).
The applicant alleged inter alia the respondent was in breach of various provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the FW Act”) arising from the applicant’s employment with the respondent.
After filing a response and defence on 16 October 2017 the respondent also filed an application in a case on 17 October 2017.
The respondent’s application in a case was heard on 30 October 2017 and the Court reserved its decision.
Against the background and for the reasons set out in Doyle v Oil Basins Limited [2017] FCCA 2758 on 14 November 2017 the following orders were made:
“1. Pursuant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Doyle v Emperor Energy Limited (No.2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] FCCA 3088
Decision Date: 8 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Doyle v Emperor Energy Limited (No.2)*, the Federal Court of Australia considered an application by the plaintiff, Mr Doyle, for an order that the defendant, Emperor Energy Limited, provide further and better particulars of its defence. The dispute arose in the context of a shareholder class action concerning alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the company's petroleum exploration activities. Mr Doyle sought to clarify the basis of Emperor Energy's defence, which asserted that the company had reasonable grounds for its public statements and that the plaintiff had failed to establish causation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Emperor Energy's defence, as pleaded, was sufficiently particularised to enable Mr Doyle to know the case he had to meet. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the defence adequately set out the factual basis for Emperor Energy's assertions regarding the reasonableness of its beliefs and the absence of causation, particularly in relation to the knowledge and actions of the company's directors and officers.

Judge O'Sullivan reasoned that a party pleading a defence must provide sufficient particulars to allow the opposing party to understand the case against them. In this instance, the defence's assertions about reasonable grounds and lack of causation were too vague and lacked the necessary factual detail. The Court found that Emperor Energy had not adequately particularised the steps taken by its directors and officers to inform themselves of the relevant facts, nor had it sufficiently explained how the alleged misleading conduct did not cause the loss claimed by the plaintiff. The Court applied the principles of pleading that require clarity and specificity to avoid ambush and ensure a fair trial.

The Court ordered that Emperor Energy provide further and better particulars of its defence within a specified timeframe.

Orders