FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
EIY20 v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 29
File number: WAD 220 of 2020 Judgment of: BANKS-SMITH J Date of judgment: 31 January 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by applicant for leave to replead – claims made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – outcome follows outcome in EIX20 v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 28 – leave to amend granted in part Cases cited: EIX20 v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 28 Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Hochroth with Dr K Fallah Solicitor for the Applicant: The National Justice Project Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Craig SC with Mr T Jeffrie, Mr A McRobert and Ms L Hilly Solicitor for the Respondent: Norton Rose Fulbright Australia ORDERS
WAD 220 of 2020 BETWEEN: EIY20
Applicant
AND: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BANKS-SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JANUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties are to provide within 14 days a joint minute of proposed orders to Chambers that, having regard to matters agreed between the parties and these reasons, records those parts of the applicant's proposed third further amended statement of claim for which leave to file and serve is granted and those parts for which leave is refused.
2.The respondent's strike out application accepted for filing on 10 January 2024 is otherwise dismissed.
3.Costs reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BANKS-SMITH J:
These reasons follow publication today of reasons in EIX20 v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 28.
The applicant in this case has similarly brought proceedings against the State of Western Australia, including claims made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA), relating to his treatment while he was detained at Banksia Hill Detention Centre.
The two actions are proceeding in parallel and with the same representation. The complaints as to the pleaded case made in EIX20 that relate to the DDA are similarly made by the State about the proposed third further amended statement of claim upon which the applicant seeks to rely in this case.
The parties agreed that the outcome in this proceeding would follow the outcome in EIX20 and relevantly did not make separate or competing submissions.
It follows that the parties should consider the reasons in EIX20 and the proposed amended pleading in this matter, and provide a joint minute of proposed orders to Chambers that reflect the appropriate outcome as to the proposed amendments. I will hear the parties as to costs in due course.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Banks-Smith. Associate:
Dated: 31 January 2025
- AGLC
- EIY20 v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 29
- Case
- [2025] FCA 29
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend their statement of claim. This decision hinged on whether the proposed amendments were permissible under the rules of court and whether they had a reasonable prospect of success. The court also needed to consider whether granting leave would cause any undue delay or prejudice to the respondent.
In its decision, the court found that some of the proposed amendments were acceptable, while others were not. The court granted leave to amend in part, aligning with the outcome in the earlier case of EIX20 v State of Western Australia (No 2). The reasoning provided by the court emphasised the need for a balance between allowing the applicant to present their case fully and ensuring that the proceedings did not become unnecessarily protracted. The court was satisfied that the proposed amendments that were allowed would not unduly prejudice the respondent or cause significant delay.
The court made several orders, including a directive for the parties to submit a joint minute of proposed orders within 14 days. This minute was to record those parts of the applicant's proposed third further amended statement of claim for which leave to file and serve was granted, and those for which leave was refused. The court also dismissed the respondent's strike-out application filed on 10 January 2024, except for the part regarding the filing. The costs were reserved for a later determination. The entry of orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The parties are to provide within 14 days a joint minute of proposed orders to Chambers that, having regard to matters agreed between the parties and these reasons, records those parts of the applicant's proposed third further amended statement of claim for which leave to file and serve is granted and those parts for which leave is refused.
2. The respondent's strike out application accepted for filing on 10 January 2024 is otherwise dismissed.
3. Costs reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.