Gall v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 2)

In Gall v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 2), the dispute involved an application to strike out the Further Amended Statement of Claim (FASOC) filed by the plaintiff, Gall, against the defendant, Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to bring a class action on behalf of a group of employees who claimed they were underpaid their award entitlements by their employer, Domino's. The core legal issues before the court were whether certain parts of the FASOC should be struck out as they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and whether the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) constituted a code that precluded claims under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in relation to underpayment of award entitlements. The plaintiff argued that the ACL claims were still valid despite the existence of remedies under the Fair Work Act.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties, focusing on whether the pleading of loss and damage was adequate, and whether the FW Act precluded ACL claims. The court held that the FW Act did not operate to preclude the ACL claims, and that the plaintiff's pleading of loss and damage was sufficient to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court found that the plaintiff did not need to show that their rights under the FW Act were damaged or lost to proceed with an ACL claim. The court also dismissed other arguments raised by the defendant regarding the adequacy of the pleadings.

The court concluded that the application to strike out the FASOC should be dismissed, as the pleadings were sufficient to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application. The dismissal of the application to strike out the FASOC allowed the class action to proceed, enabling the plaintiff to pursue claims for misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL.