Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1166

File number:

WAD 317 of 2024

Judgment of:

SNADEN J

Date of judgment:

22 September 2025

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for summary dismissal or alternatively, strike out – where applicant is a litigant-in-person – whether applicant has a reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting causes of action under ss 340, 351 and 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”) – where applicant has refused to obtain legal advice and otherwise constructively engage with the deficiencies in his concise statement – where costs sought pursuant to s 570 of the FW Act – whether applicant has acted unreasonably so as to require that respondent incur costs – application allowed

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 340, 351 and 789FD

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 26.01

Cases cited:

Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 650

Division:

Fair Work Division

Registry:

Western Australia

National Practice Area:

Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs:

19

Date of last submissions:

29 August 2025

Date of hearing:

15 September 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:	22 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to its interlocutory application dated 20 August 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.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SNADEN J:

1. By judgment dated 20 June 2025, the court resolved to strike out in its entirety the concise statement upon which the applicant, Mr Howard, relied in support of his originating application of 17 October 2024:  Howard v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 650 (“Howard No 1”; Snaden J).  The respondent’s ancillary motion for summary judgment was, in all but one respect, rejected; and Mr Howard was directed, instead, to file an amended concise statement.  In so ordering, the court sought, by its reasons, to impress upon Mr Howard the characteristics that that amendment should strive to assume.  For the most part, those exhortations reflected what the respondent had, by prior correspondence, already communicated to Mr Howard about the deficiencies that attended his concise statement:  Howard No 1, [47]-[53] (Snaden J).

2. Mr Howard filed an amended concise statement on 10 July 2025.  It bears little resemblance to its original form.  It is clear that Mr Howard expended considerable energy in preparing it and, in so doing, made at least some effort to heed the concerns that were set out in Howard No 1