Schreiber v The University of Queensland

In this matter before Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court, the applicant, Ms. Schreiber, sought to amend her application and statement of claim against the respondent, The University of Queensland. The core dispute concerned allegations that the University contravened provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and an enterprise agreement in relation to parental leave. The University had applied for summary dismissal of the applicant's case and, in the alternative, sought to dismiss the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court was required to determine whether section 84 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* imposed an obligation on an employer, and whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting her application. Additionally, the court considered the applicant's request to amend her statement of claim to include a new cause of action, alleging a contravention of section 50 of the Act by breaching the University's Enterprise Agreement, in addition to the existing claim under section 44. The court also considered the respondent's request to amend its defence to plead that section 84 of the Act created no obligation.

Judge Jarrett found that section 84 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* clearly imposes an obligation on an employer to provide the entitlements set out in that section. Consequently, the application for summary dismissal was dismissed, as the court was not satisfied that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success. The alternative application to dismiss the statement of claim was also dismissed, as the statement of claim did plead a cause of action. The court granted the applicant leave to amend her statement of claim to include the additional cause of action under section 50 of the Act, provided the amendment was made by a specified date. The respondent was also granted leave to file an amended defence.

The court ordered that the applicant have leave to amend her application and statement of claim by a specified date. The respondent was granted leave to file an amended defence and response by a later specified date. The respondent's application for summary dismissal was dismissed, and the matter was adjourned for directions.