Fair Work Ombudsman v Offshore Marine Services Pty Ltd (No 3)

The case of Fair Work Ombudsman v Offshore Marine Services Pty Ltd (No 3) involved the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) seeking leave to amend its application to include relief by way of compensation for Mr and Mrs Love. This followed the earlier determinations of liability in Fair Work Ombudsman v Offshore Marine Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 943. The central issue before the court was whether the FWO should be granted leave to amend its application to seek compensation for the Loves, despite the significant delay in making such a claim. The Marine Union of Australia (MUA) opposed the amendment, arguing that it would cause substantial and undue delay and result in irreparable prejudice.

The legal issue before the court was whether the delay in seeking compensation for the Loves would be contrary to the overarching purpose of the court's jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The FWO argued that there was no impediment to seeking compensation and that the delay was not due to any fault or negligence on its part. The court had to balance the need for just determination of the proceedings against the potential prejudice to the MUA if the amendment was allowed.

The court found that the FWO was not at fault for the delay in seeking compensation and that the delay did not prejudice the MUA's ability to defend the proceedings. The court held that the substantial delay did not amount to an abuse of process and that the amendment would not be contrary to the overarching purpose. The court granted the FWO leave to file and serve a further amended application by a specified date and adjourned the matter for further directions, allowing the MUA the opportunity to join OMS in a cross-claim if it chose to do so.