Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 40 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 650

File number: WAD 317 of 2024
Judgment of: SNADEN J
Date of judgment: 20 June 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –interlocutory application for summary dismissal, strike out and indemnity costs – where applicant is a litigant-in-person – whether applicant has a reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting causes of action under ss 340(1), 348 and 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether pleading ought be removed from the court file pursuant to r 16.21(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether applicant has acted unreasonably so as to require that respondent incur costs – whether applicant’s conduct was both deserving of criticism and resulted in greater expense to the respondent – application allowed in part.
Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 341, 342, 347, 348, 351, 570

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 31A, 37M

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.21, 26.01

Cases cited:

Clifton v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd(No 2) (2020) 277 FCR 382

Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

Granitgard Pty Ltd v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 55

Gunawardena v Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Ltd (Strike-out Application) [2024] FCA 1206

Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375

Harvey v Dioceses of Sale Catholic Education Ltd (St Joseph’s Primary School Wonthaggi) (No 2) [2021] FCA 1102

Messenger v Commonwealth [2022] FCA 677

PIA Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v King (2020) 274 FCR 225

Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Me Qualified Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 192

Shumack v Commonwealth [2009] FCA 775

Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1081

White Industries Aust Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 160 FCR 298
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 68
Date of hearing: 16 June 2025
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms J Flinn
Solicitor for the Respondent: Hall & Wilcox

ORDERS

WAD 317 of 2024
BETWEEN:

JASON HOWARD

Applicant
AND:

CHEVRON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SNADEN J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the claim outlined in the applicant’s originating application for relief in respect of conduct said to have been engaged in in contravention of s 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be dismissed.

2.Pursuant to r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicant’s concise statement dated 3 December 2024 be struck out in its entirety.

3.Pursuant to r 16.21(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicant’s concise statement dated 3 December 2024 be removed from the court file.

4.On or before 18 July 2025, the applicant file and serve an amended concise statement.

5.The respondent’s…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd 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 650
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr Howard, filed a suit against Chevron Australia Pty Ltd for alleged adverse actions taken against him in contravention of several sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia where Mr Howard, as a litigant-in-person, sought to bring three statutory causes of action against Chevron. These causes of action were based on allegations of discrimination, adverse action, and coercion under sections 351, 340(1), and 348 of the FW Act respectively.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Howard had a reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the causes of action, whether the pleadings should be removed from the court file, and if Mr Howard's conduct warranted an order for indemnity costs. The court needed to balance the importance of the matter to Mr Howard against the necessity for fairness to all parties and the overarching purpose of the Federal Court Act. The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of Mr Howard's explanations and the clarity of his pleadings. While acknowledging Mr Howard's commitment to his case, the court found that his explanations were not always clearly articulated and lacked some necessary detail. This led to the conclusion that the pleadings did not provide a reasonable prospect of success for the claims under sections 340(1) and 348 of the FW Act.

The court granted the interlocutory application in part, dismissing the claim under section 348 of the FW Act and striking out and removing the concise statement from the court file. Mr Howard was ordered to file an amended concise statement within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court dismissed Chevron's application for indemnity costs, finding that while Mr Howard's conduct was deserving of criticism, it did not result in greater expense to Chevron. Consequently, the court ordered Mr Howard to pay Chevron's costs of the interlocutory application in accordance with the court’s costs practice note.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the claim outlined in the applicant’s originating application for relief in respect of conduct said to have been engaged in in contravention of s 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be dismissed.

2. Pursuant to r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicant’s concise statement dated 3 December 2024 be struck out in its entirety.

3. Pursuant to r 16.21(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicant’s concise statement dated 3 December 2024 be removed from the court file.

4. On or before 18 July 2025, the applicant file and serve an amended concise statement.

5. The respondent’s interlocutory application dated 10 January 2025 be otherwise dismissed.

6. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to its interlocutory application dated 10 January 2025 in an amount to be assessed in default of agreement in accordance with the court’s costs practice note (GPN-costs).

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

In approaching the present application, I am conscious that Mr Howard should not be disadvantaged by the fact that he is self-represented. At the hearing of the respondent’s interlocutory application, it was very clear to me—more so even than might usually be presumed—that this matter is very important to him. His submissions (like those of his father, who assisted him at the hearing) were courteous and thoughtful but they conveyed an unmistakeable commitment to the view that Chevron has treated him egregiously and in a manner that should self-evidently be liable to relief; and that any non-acceptance of that view reflects some nefarious objective consistent with corruption (whether on Chevron’s part or otherwise). As obvious as Mr Howard’s passion is, the court’s duty is to ensure that the matter proceeds in a manner that is fair to all parties: Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375, [309]-[310] (Beazley JA, with whom Giles and Whealy JJA agreed). That requires that attention be focused upon the overarching purpose to which s 37M of the FCA Act gives voice.SUMMARY JUDGMENT It is plain from Mr Howard’s originating application that he hopes to press three statutory causes of action. The first alleges that Chevron subjected him to adverse action in contravention of s 351 of the FW Act; the second alleges that Chevron subjected him to adverse action in contravention of s 340(1) of the FW Act; and the third alleges that Chevron took action against him in contravention of s 348 of the FW Act (specifically, with intent to coerce him into engaging in industrial activity). I will return to the state of the pleadings momentarily. For present purposes, it suffices to note that the observations that are contained in this section of these reasons arise from the helpful submissions that Mr Howard and his father made during the course of the hearing of the respondent’s interlocutory application. During that hearing, the court attempted to explore with Mr Howard how it was that he put each of the three causes of action that find expression in the originating application. Intending no disrespect—and acknowledging, again, the limitations under which self-represented applicants inevitably labour—Mr Howard’s explanations were not always clearly articulated. Occasionally they were tinged by exasperated tones, as though the subjects of exploration were so obvious as not to require elaboration. Be that as it may, what follows is my summation of the matters that Mr Howard was able to explain, and how those explanations should bear upon my determination of Chevron’s interlocutory application. It is convenient to separate the observations according to the three causes of action that are in play.Discrimination Section 351(1) of the FW Act provides as follows, namely:351 Discrimination (1)An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because of the person’s race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, breastfeeding, gender identity, intersex status, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, subjection to family and domestic violence, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.