Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd (No 2)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 478

Appeal from:

Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2022] FCA 1166

File number:

WAD 217 of 2022

Judgment of:

COLVIN J

Date of judgment:

16 May 2023

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570

Cases cited:

Liu v Stephen Grubits and Associates (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 42

Mutch v ISG Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 954

Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2023] FCA 331

Trustee for The MTGI Trust v Johnston (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 190

Division:

Fair Work Division

Registry:

Western Australia

National Practice Area:

Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs:

15

Date of last submissions:

17 April 2023 (first and second respondents)
3 May 2023 (applicant)

Date of hearing:

Determined on the papers

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr B Collins KC with Ms CM Saraceni

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Harmers Workplace Lawyers

Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:

Mr NC Ebbs

Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:

Bennett

Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents:

The third and fourth respondents did not appear

ORDERS

WAD 217 of 2022

BETWEEN:

STEVEN PIGOZZO

Applicant

AND:

MINERAL RESOURCES LTD (ACN 118 549 910)

First Respondent

CHRIS ELLISON

Second Respondent

BENNETT + CO

Third Respondent

ROBERT 'BOB' GAVRANICH
Fourth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MAY 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay 50% of the costs of the first and second respondents of the application for leave to appeal (including the application for costs), but excluding the costs of the application for an extension of time made on 31 January 2023.

2.The costs payable under these orders be assessed by a Registrar if not agreed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

1. Mr Steven Pigozzo was formerly employed by Mineral Resources Ltd (MRL).  He claims that MRL, its chief executive officer and one of its senior managers contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in respect of his employment. He claims to have been unlawfully dismissed from employment. He also alleges that a firm of solicitors aided and abetted the alleged contraventions. An application to strike out the statement of claim in proceedings brought by Mr Pigozzo in this Court was successful. Leave was given to re-plead.

2. Mr Pigozzo brought an application for leave to appeal the decision to strike out the pleading.  The application identified 39 proposed grounds of appeal.  To a significant degree, the complaints made were to the effect that the primary judge adopted an overly technical approach which was said to be a departure from modern practice.  It also advanced a claim that, as to a specific part of the pleading that was struck out, it was not possible to re-plead because there was no further factual matters to plead.  There was also an issue as to whether by reason of fraud or an iniquity, there…