Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited - [2023] FedCFamC2G 904

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited [2023] FedCFamC2G 904

File number(s): SYG 1205 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE CAMERON

Date of judgment: 12 October 2023

Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Pleadings – application for summary dismissal – alternative application to strike out – relevant considerations.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 144, 145, 203, 204, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 351, 355, 536CA, 536D, 557A

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 143

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.13, 14.10, sch 1 item 14

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.21

Cases cited:
Imobilari Pty Ltd v Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (2008) 252 ALR 41

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (2013) 220 FCR 256

Leach v Burston [2022] FCA 87

Krajniw v Newman (No 2) [2015] FCA 673

Division: Fair Work

Number of paragraphs: 45

Date of hearing: 23 February 2023

Place: Sydney

For the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person by teleconference

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms R. Kumar

Solicitor for the Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills
ORDERS

SYG 1205 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
RAJESH MANIVANNAN

Applicant

AND:
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED (ABN 28109981777)

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CAMERON

DATE OF ORDER:

12 OCTOBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Paragraphs 11, 27 and 28(a), (b), (e), (f) and (g) of the statement of claim filed on 20 September 2022 be struck out.
2.The applicant provide to the respondent copies of all documents referred to in the remainder of the statement of claim filed on 20 September 2022.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE CAMERON
INTRODUCTION

In this proceeding, the applicant, Mr Manivannan filed an originating application on 10 August 2022. An accompanying statement of claim was prolix and on 9 September 2022 Mr Manivannan was given leave to file a shorter points of claim. On 20 September 2022 he filed a second statement of claim (SOC). The SOC variously alleged against the respondent, Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS), breach of contract, negligence and breaches of ss.340(1)(a); 341(1); 343(1)(a), (b); 344(c), (e); 345(1)(a), (b); 351(1); 355(a), (c), (d); 557A(1)(a), (b) and (2)(a), (b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). Contraventions of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Work Health and Safety…

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 Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited 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: [2023] FedCFamC2G 904
Decision Date: 12 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, the case of Manivannan v Tata Consultancy Services Limited concerned a dispute involving the plaintiff, Mr Manivannan, who brought claims against the defendant, Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS). Mr Manivannan's claims were initially found to be vague and ambiguous, leading to an application by TCS for summary dismissal or, alternatively, to strike out certain parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently clear and specific to be actionable and whether it would be appropriate to grant leave to amend the pleadings.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the adequacy of the plaintiff's pleadings under the rules of court and the appropriate remedy in cases where the pleadings were found to be deficient. The court considered whether the plaintiff's claims were vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, rendering them incapable of being sensibly admitted or traversed. The court also had to assess whether the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to be able to replead the defective portions of his statement of claim in a manner that would comply with the relevant rules.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the plaintiff had been given multiple opportunities to clarify and amend his claims, significant portions of his statement of claim remained unclear and confusing. The court determined that the plaintiff's claims were not sufficiently precise to allow TCS to properly respond to them. Consequently, the court decided to strike out certain parts of the statement of claim that were identified as vague or unintelligible. However, the court did not summarily dismiss the entire case, as it was not convinced that it would be impossible for the plaintiff to amend his pleadings to meet the required standard. Instead, the court directed the plaintiff to provide copies of all documents referred to in the remainder of the statement of claim to TCS.

In summary, the court struck out specific paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim due to their lack of clarity and directed the plaintiff to provide relevant documents to the defendant. The court did not dismiss the case outright but left the door open for the plaintiff to amend his pleadings, provided they met the necessary standards of clarity and specificity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

So it is in this case. Mr Manivannan has now had two opportunities to plead his case and two opportunities to provide further and better particulars that give substance to those allegations but important aspects of the claims he makes are still ambiguous, confusing, vague, unintelligible and incapable of being sensibly admitted or traversed by TCS. It is for that reason that I have accepted TCS’s submission that leave to replead the passages that have been struck from the more recent iteration of the SOC ought not be granted as a matter of course. Also, I have not summarily dismissed the contested allegations as, although the present pleading is deficient as described, I am not presently persuaded that it would be impossible for Mr Manivannan to craft a pleading that would not fall found of r.13.13 of the Rules.CONCLUSION For the above reasons, paras.11, 27 and 28(a), (b), (e), (f) and (g) of the statement of claim filed on 20 September 2022 will be struck out and Mr Manivannan will be directed to provide to TCS copies of all documents referred to in the remainder of the statement of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYG 1205 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE CAMERON
Date of judgment:	12 October 2023
Catchwords:	PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Pleadings – application for summary dismissal – alternative application to strike out – relevant considerations.
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 144, 145, 203, 204, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 351, 355, 536CA, 536D, 557A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 143 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.13, 14.10, sch 1 item 14 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.21
Cases cited:	Imobilari Pty Ltd v Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (2008) 252 ALR 41 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (2013) 220 FCR 256 Leach v Burston [2022] FCA 87 Krajniw v Newman (No 2) [2015] FCA 673
Division:	Fair Work
Number of paragraphs:	45
Date of hearing:	23 February 2023
Place:	Sydney
For the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person by teleconference
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms R. Kumar
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Herbert Smith Freehills

SYG 1205 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	RAJESH MANIVANNAN Applicant
AND:	TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED (ABN 28109981777) Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE CAMERON
DATE OF ORDER:	12 OCTOBER 2023