HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling - [2025] FCA 298

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling [2025] FCA 298

File number(s): QUD 30 of 2024

Judgment of: SARAH C DERRINGTON J

Date of judgment: 2 April 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend originating application and statement of claim – matter previously set down for trial – no explanation given by applicant for failure to earlier plead case on amended terms – whether amendments sought lack sufficient particulars – whether causes of action disclose reasonable prospects of success – significant unexplained delay by applicant in seeking leave to amend – whether amendments being permitted would cause prejudice to the respondent – abandonment of trial dates causing detriment to other litigants in the Court – whether applicant given sufficient opportunity to put its case – application refused

Legislation:
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 8.21, 16.02, 16.53

Cases cited:
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Mashaghati [2017] QCA 127; 1 Qd R 429

Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1995] FCA 1368; 58 FCR 26

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Braun v St Vincent’s Private Hospital Northside Ltd [2023] FCA 166

Bryant (Liquidator) v L.V. Dohnt & Co Pty Ltd, in the Matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] FCA 238

Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 101; 187 FCR 261

Curtiss-Wright Corporation v Edel-Brown Tool & Die Co, Inc. (1980) 407 NE 2d 319

Darcy v Medtel Pty Ltd (No 3) [2004] FCA 807

Draney v Barry [1999] QCA 491

Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 2) [2025] FCA 96

Hartleys Ltd v Martin [2002] VSC 301

I F Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Galbally (2003) 59 IPR 43

KTC v David [2022] FCAFC 60

Liberty FinancialPty Ltd v Jugovic [2021] FCA 607

Motion v Samsung Electronics Australia [2009] FCA 320; 176 FCR 66

Murden v NM Superannuation Pty Ltd as trustee of the AMP Super Fund [2025] FCA 148

Southern Cross Financial Group (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Rodrigues (2005) 66 IPR 166

Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (a firm) [2016] FCAFC 2

Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd v Whelan [2008] VSC 403

Walker v Southcott Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 864

Worth Recycling Pty Ltd v Waste Recycling and Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 354

Division: Fair Work Division

Registry: Queensland

National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs: 60

Date of hearing: 13 March 2025

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Harding

Solicitor for the Applicant: Wotton Kearney

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Trim

Solicitor for the Respondent: Carter Newell Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 30 of 2024

BETWEEN:
HEALTHX GROUP PTY LTD ACN 155 858 969

Applicant

AND:
CAROLLYNE PALLING

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:
CAROLLYNE PALLING

Cross-Claimant

AND:
HEALTHX GROUP PTY LTD ACN 155 858 969

Cross-Respondent

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 HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling 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: [2025] FCA 298
Decision Date: 2 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

HealthX Group Pty Ltd sought leave to amend its originating application and statement of claim against Palling. The case, previously set down for trial, concerned allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, misuse of confidential information, and passing off. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the amendments were permissible, particularly given the significant delay and lack of explanation from HealthX Group Pty Ltd. The court had to consider if the proposed amendments lacked sufficient particulars, if the causes of action had reasonable prospects of success, and whether permitting the amendments would cause prejudice to the respondent, Palling. Furthermore, the court assessed the impact of the abandonment of trial dates on other litigants and whether HealthX Group Pty Ltd had been adequately given the opportunity to present its case.

The Federal Court found that HealthX Group Pty Ltd had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking leave to amend. The court determined that the proposed amendments lacked sufficient particulars and did not disclose reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the court noted that allowing the amendments would cause significant prejudice to Palling and result in the detriment of other litigants due to the abandonment of trial dates. The court held that HealthX Group Pty Ltd had been given sufficient opportunity to put its case, and therefore, the application for leave to amend was refused.

Consequently, the Federal Court dismissed HealthX Group Pty Ltd’s interlocutory application filed on 19 February 2025. The court ordered that HealthX Group Pty Ltd pay the respondent’s costs of the application and the reserved costs of the case management hearing on 12 November 2024, to be taxed if not agreed. This decision underscores the importance of timely and particularised pleadings in litigation, particularly in cases where significant delays and lack of explanation are involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s interlocutory application filed on 19 February 2025 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, and the reserved costs of the case management hearing on 12 November 2024, to be taxed if not agreed.

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.

File number(s):	QUD 30 of 2024
Judgment of:	SARAH C DERRINGTON J
Date of judgment:	2 April 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend originating application and statement of claim – matter previously set down for trial – no explanation given by applicant for failure to earlier plead case on amended terms – whether amendments sought lack sufficient particulars – whether causes of action disclose reasonable prospects of success – significant unexplained delay by applicant in seeking leave to amend – whether amendments being permitted would cause prejudice to the respondent – abandonment of trial dates causing detriment to other litigants in the Court – whether applicant given sufficient opportunity to put its case – application refused
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 8.21, 16.02, 16.53
Cases cited:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Mashaghati [2017] QCA 127; 1 Qd R 429 Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1995] FCA 1368; 58 FCR 26 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Braun v St Vincent’s Private Hospital Northside Ltd [2023] FCA 166 Bryant (Liquidator) v L.V. Dohnt & Co Pty Ltd, in the Matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] FCA 238 Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 101; 187 FCR 261 Curtiss-Wright Corporation v Edel-Brown Tool & Die Co, Inc. (1980) 407 NE 2d 319 Darcy v Medtel Pty Ltd (No 3) [2004] FCA 807 Draney v Barry [1999] QCA 491 Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 2) [2025] FCA 96 Hartleys Ltd v Martin [2002] VSC 301 I F Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Galbally (2003) 59 IPR 43 KTC v David [2022] FCAFC 60 Liberty FinancialPty Ltd v Jugovic [2021] FCA 607 Motion v Samsung Electronics Australia [2009] FCA 320; 176 FCR 66 Murden v NM Superannuation Pty Ltd as trustee of the AMP Super Fund [2025] FCA 148 Southern Cross Financial Group (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Rodrigues (2005) 66 IPR 166 Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (a firm) [2016] FCAFC 2 Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd v Whelan [2008] VSC 403 Walker v Southcott Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 864 Worth Recycling Pty Ltd v Waste Recycling and Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 354
Division:	Fair Work Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs:	60
Date of hearing:	13 March 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A Harding
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Wotton Kearney
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M Trim
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Carter Newell Lawyers

QUD 30 of 2024
BETWEEN:	HEALTHX GROUP PTY LTD ACN 155 858 969 Applicant
AND:	CAROLLYNE PALLING Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	CAROLLYNE PALLING Cross-Claimant
AND:	HEALTHX GROUP PTY LTD ACN 155 858 969 Cross-Respondent