Sabapathy v Jetstar Airways

Sabapathy v Jetstar Airways involved an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court to strike out a statement of claim but with leave to replead. The application also sought judicial review of the decision to remove multiple respondents. The primary judge had removed several respondents from the proceedings on the basis that they were not necessary parties, and the applicant, Sabapathy, was granted leave to amend his pleadings to address the remaining respondents. Sabapathy sought to challenge the removal of the respondents and to appeal the decision to strike out his statement of claim.

The court was required to decide whether questions of general importance had been raised but there was no substantial injustice, whether leave to appeal should be granted. The court also needed to determine whether the primary judge failed to afford procedural fairness to the applicant, whether the denial of procedural fairness was material, whether there is utility in granting relief, and whether Sabapathy had a reasonable cause of action against the removed respondents.

The court found that although Sabapathy had not identified any substantial injustice caused by the primary judge's decision, there were questions of general importance raised by the case. The court was not satisfied that it would be futile to grant relief on the application for judicial review, as Sabapathy may have a reasonable cause of action against some of the removed respondents. The court found that the primary judge had failed to afford procedural fairness to Sabapathy, but this failure was not material to the outcome of the case. The court concluded that there was utility in granting relief and that Sabapathy had a reasonable cause of action against some of the removed respondents.

The court quashed orders 2 to 16 made by the primary judge and remitted the matter to the Federal Circuit Court. The court also reserved costs to be determined if necessary, on the papers, and set out a timeframe for any applications for costs. The court emphasised the importance of Sabapathy's compliance with the pleading rules and cautioned against including extraneous evidentiary matters in any further amended statement of claim.