FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Holt v Turner Therapy [2025] FedCFamC2G 1667
Continue reading Holt v Turner Therapy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Holt v Turner Therapy [2025] FedCFamC2G 1667
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2G 1667
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nicole Holt commenced proceedings against Grace Turner Therapy in relation to an employment dispute. Holt alleges that she was unfairly dismissed from her part-time position, which was made redundant. Turner Therapy has applied to strike out portions of Holt's statement of claim on the basis that they are likely to be embarrassing and may cause a delay in the proceeding. The central legal issue before the court was whether certain parts of Holt's statement of claim should be struck out. Turner Therapy argued that specific content in Holt's statement of claim was likely to be embarrassing and could cause a delay in the proceeding, and therefore should be removed. The court considered the criteria for striking out content under the relevant rules and found that some parts of Holt's statement of claim were likely to be embarrassing and could potentially cause a delay. Consequently, the court decided to strike out these portions of the statement of claim and give Holt an opportunity to replead.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles that proceedings should be conducted in a manner that is fair, just, and efficient. The court noted that while it is important for parties to have the opportunity to present their case, it is equally important to avoid unnecessary delays and embarrassment. The court found that striking out the identified content would not significantly prejudice Turner Therapy's ability to defend the proceeding and would help maintain the efficiency and fairness of the legal process. Therefore, the court granted Turner Therapy's application to strike out certain parts of Holt's statement of claim.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles that proceedings should be conducted in a manner that is fair, just, and efficient. The court noted that while it is important for parties to have the opportunity to present their case, it is equally important to avoid unnecessary delays and embarrassment. The court found that striking out the identified content would not significantly prejudice Turner Therapy's ability to defend the proceeding and would help maintain the efficiency and fairness of the legal process. Therefore, the court granted Turner Therapy's application to strike out certain parts of Holt's statement of claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
The three Applications before me are:(a)the Applicant’s 24 July Application;[3](b)the Applicant’s 5 August Application; and (c)the Respondent’s 7 August Application.[4][3] Application to set aside orders and reinstate the application for default judgment.[4] Application for summary dismissal alternatively strike out.BACKGROUND The following background facts appear to be uncontroversial. On 1 July 2024, the Applicant commenced employment at the Respondent’s business on a part-time basis, namely 6 hours per week or 12 hours per fortnight. On 18 November 2024, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent which provided:Hi GraceI want to take a moment to address some of the challenges we’ve encountered in my role as Admin I believe it’s important to provide my perspective so we can move forward with mutual understanding.Throughout my time here, I have done my best to meet your expectations and follow the instructions provided. However, I’ve encountered situations where the expectations or directions have changed after being communicated. This has led to confusion and difficulties in meeting your standards, despite my genuine efforts to comply.Additionally, I understand that you have specific ways you prefer things to be done, and I have always aimed to align with them. However, I have also found it challenging when I’ve been criticised for either following or not following those instructions.My intention has always been to support the business effectively and professionally. To address these concerns, I’ve taken steps to document all instructions, ensure I can reference them accurately, and focus on providing concise, factual responses as per your requests. This approach is not intended to rebut or challenge you but to create transparency and accountability. I value the opportunity to contribute to this business, and I am committed to continuing to perform my role to the best of my ability. I would appreciate any additional feedback or clarification you can provide to help me better meet your expectations moving forward.Thank you for taking the time to hear my perspective. I hope this can lead to a more productive and positive working relationship.ThanksNicole Holt(Emphasis added) On 19 November 2024, the Respondent’s director (Respondent’s Director) sent the Applicant a letter by way of email and sought to discuss changes to the Respondent’s business (19 November 2024 Letter). A response was to be provided by 25 November 2024. On 20 November 2024, the Respondent’s Director wrote a further email to the Applicant and requested to meet to discuss operational changes. Attached to this email was a termination letter addressed to the Applicant and confirmed that her employment was to cease immediately due to the position being made redundant (Termination Letter). On 21 November 2024, the Applicant replied to the Respondent’s Director by way of email and attached extracts of the Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020 (MA000027) (HPSSA).[5][5] That letter and the extracts are not reproduced in the material. See p 15 of the Form 2.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
In substance, the Applicant seeks:(a)an extension of time to review the Registrar’s Decision; (b)review of the exercise of power by the Registrar in relation to the 10 June Application and the making of the 8 July Orders; and(c)revision of the timetable.Review of Registrar’s Decision Section 254 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act) provides for the making of Rules of Court for the delegation of any of the powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) to a delegate which includes a Senior Registrar or a Registrar. Rule 21.01 of the 2021 GFL Rules provided that for the purposes of s 254(2)(1) of the FCFCOA Act, the powers of the court mentioned in Table 21.1 are prescribed. Item 58 of Table 21.1 provides that r 13.13 (“to order that a proceeding be stayed, or dismissed generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding”) may be exercised by a Registrar. Section 256(1) of the FCFCOA Act provides that a party to proceedings in which a delegate has exercised any of the powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) under s 254 may apply to the Court for review of that exercise of power. The application for review must be made within the time prescribed under the Rules or within any further time allowed in accordance with the Rules. Rule 21.02(2) of the 2021 GFL Rules provided that subject to any contrary direction by the Court or a Judge, an application for review must be made within 7 days after the day on which the power was exercised. While r 3.06 of the 2025 GFL Rules now provides that the application for review of the exercise of a power by a Registrar must be made within 21 days after the day on which the power is exercised. That time limit does not apply in the present case as both the 7 day period and the 21 day period had expired prior to 1 September 2025. Rule 3.08 of the 2025 GFL Rules provides that a review of the exercise of power by a Registrar must proceed by way of a hearing de novo,[14] in other words, “anew” or “afresh”.[14] Bechara v Bates (2021) 286 FCR 166 per Allsop CJ, Markovic & Colvin JJ at [17] – [31]. In Totev v Sfar (2008) 167 FCR 193, Emmett J held that this entailed “a complete rehearing of the facts and the law as they exist when the judge reviews the order made by the registrar” (at [10]). Section 256(2) of the FCFCOA Act provides that on a review, the court may “and may make any order or orders it thinks fit in relation to the matter in respect of which the power was exercised”. On a successful review, the court may set aside the exercise of the delegated power and make consequential orders to unwind the effect of the exercise of that power.[15] Where the review is dismissed, the order made by the delegate continues as a valid and authorised exercise of judicial power from the time of the exercise of that delegated power.[16][15] Robson v Body Corporate for Sterling at Kings Beach CTS 2942 (2021) 286 FCR 494 per Allsop CJ (Markovic & Derrington JJ agreeing) at [2]-[4] and [18]-[29].[16] Section 254(4) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act).Orders on Default
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.