Legal Research
Cases
Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd

Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FCAFC 110 22 August 2025

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 110

Appeal from: Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1401

File number: QUD 524 of 2023

Judgment of: BANKS-SMITH, MEAGHER AND KENNETT JJ

Date of judgment: 22 August 2025

Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – federal jurisdiction – where the appellant had discontinued proceedings following the execution of a deed of release – where the appellant then sought to allege essentially the same facts in a new proceeding while seeking different relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) and in tort – where the primary judge summarily dismissed the proceeding – where the primary judge found the deed barred the new claims made under the FW Act – where the primary judge found the claims in tort were “colourable”, such that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear them – whether the primary judge erred in making such findings

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 45, 340, 352, 545, 546, 570

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 10, 237

Cases cited:
Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited v PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited [2004] ACTCA 28

Arrowsmith v Micallef [2013] QCA 143; [2015] 2 Qd R 208

Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v R [2011] VSCA 23; 203 IR 396

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212

Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16; 276 CLR 216

Francis v Emijay Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 62; 2 Qd R 5

Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd[2008] FCAFC 60; 167 FCR 372

Pepsi Seven-Up Bottlers Perth Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 62 FCR 289

Prior v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808

Qantas Airways Ltd v Gubbins (1992) 28 NSWLR 26

Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156; 254 FCR 1

Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 933

Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; 256 CLR 507

Tucker v McPhee [2022] FCAFC 98; 292 FCR 666

Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 5; 250 FCR 341

UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; 265 CLR 77

Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v FAW Industries Pty Ltdand Insurance Australia Ltd [2017] ACTCA 2; 12 ACTLR 80

Division: Fair Work Division

Registry: Queensland

National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs: 68

Date of hearing: 27 March 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: M Black

Counsel for the Appellant: Queensland Workplace & Workplace Injury Law

Counsel for the Respondent: S Mackie

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ai Group Workplace Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 524 of 2023

BETWEEN:
MICHAEL SHANE SCOTT

Appellant

AND:
STERITECH PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BANKS-SMITH, MEAGHER AND…

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.

Continue reading Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 110
Case: [2025] FCAFC 110
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd involved a dispute where the appellant, after discontinuing proceedings following the execution of a deed of release, attempted to re-allege the same facts in a new proceeding under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and in tort against the respondent. The primary judge dismissed the proceeding, finding the deed barred the claims under the FW Act and the tort claims to be "colourable". The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the primary judge erred in these findings.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and effect of the deed of release and its impact on the appellant's ability to bring new claims under the FW Act and in tort. Additionally, the Court had to decide whether the claims in tort were indeed "colourable" and if the Federal Court had jurisdiction over them. The Court needed to consider the principles of res judicata and whether the claims were an attempt to circumvent the effect of the deed of release.

The High Court held that the primary judge's findings were correct in dismissing the claims under the FW Act due to the effect of the deed of release. However, the Court found that the primary judge erred in dismissing the tort claims as "colourable". The Court held that the claims in tort were not merely a re-characterisation of the earlier claims and thus, the Court did have jurisdiction to hear them. The High Court further held that the appellant was not precluded by the deed of release from bringing claims in tort.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Federal Court was set aside. In lieu thereof, it was ordered that the originating application be dismissed in so far as it seeks compensation under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The decision clarifies the extent to which a deed of release can bar claims and the jurisdictional boundaries concerning "colourable" claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The judgment of the Federal Court of Australia delivered on 14 November 2023 be set aside, and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the originating application be dismissed in so far as it seeks compensation under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 110

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd
[2024] FCA 933 Para 10

…the parties, the leave application was determined without an oral hearing. Leave to appeal was granted on 21 August 2024: Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 933. The reasoning of the primary judge…
Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd
[2023] FCA 1401

…FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 110 Appeal from: Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1401 File number: QUD 524 of 2023 Judgment of: BANKS-SMITH, MEAGHER AND KENNETT JJ Date of judgment: 22 August 2025 Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – federal jurisdiction – where the app…
Tucker v McKee
[2022] FCAFC 98 Para 2

…e that is “incapable on its face of legal argument” (so as to be colourable) was noted and applied in Tucker v McPhee [2022] FCAFC 98; 292 FCR 666 at [71] (Allsop CJ, Kenny and Jagot JJ) ( Tucker )).…
Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn
[2022] HCA 16 Para 8

…be determined by the Court as part of the same matter, because the FW Act claim was “unarguable”, referring to Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16; 276 CLR 216 at [36] ( Citta Hobart ) .…
Prior v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation
[2020] FCA 808 Para 20

…point to some factual or evidentiary issues making a trial necessary” ( Prior v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808 at [29(f)] (McKerracher J) ( Prior ), citing Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd [2008] FCAFC 60; 167 FCR 372 at [127] (Gordon J…
Sarina v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd
[2018] FCAFC 190 Para 23

…ntention of both releasor and releasee as to the subject matter on which the release would operate” ( Sarina v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 190; 365 ALR 15 at [21] (Rares, Markovic and Bromwich JJ)). We understand this proposition — which obviously invokes equitable concepts — to be distinct from…
UBS AG v Tyne
[2018] HCA 45 Para 12

…primary judge noted that the onus of establishing an abuse of process lies on the party alleging it and is a heavy one (at [26], citing UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; 265 CLR 77 at [67] (Gageler J), [136] (Gordon J) ( UBS v Tyne )) but also that, generally, relitigating proceedings that have been finalised constit…
Rana v Google Inc
[2017] FCAFC 156 Para 15

…jurisdiction to determine his claim for damages on the basis that it was part of the same “matter” as the FW Act claims (citing Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156; 254 FCR 1 ( Rana )). This principle was, as her Honour explained by reference to authority (at [49]-[51]), subject to an exception where the federal cla…
Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v FAW Industries Pty Ltd and Insurance Australia Ltd
[2017] ACTCA 2 Para 12

…efshauge ACJ, Penfold and Burns JJ in Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v FAW Industries Pty Ltd and Insurance Australia Ltd [2017] ACTCA 2; 12 ACTLR 80 at [81], in the course of construing references to “workers compensation” in statutory provisions.…
Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG (No 2)
[2017] FCAFC 5 Para 12

…ve been discontinued as well as those that have proceeded to judgment (at [31], referring to reasoning of Dowsett J in Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 5; 250 FCR 341 that was effectively endorsed by the plurality in the High Court in UBS v Tyne ). Given the agreement to settle the Circuit Court procee…
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd
[2015] HCA 28 Para 12

…roceedings that have been finalised constitutes an abuse (at [27]-[34], referring to authorities including Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; 256 CLR 507 at [25]-[26] (French CJ, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ) ( Tomlinson )). Her Honour noted that the second of these propositions can extend t…
Tyne v UBS AG (No 2)
[2014] FCA 1228 Para 12

…nued as well as those that have proceeded to judgment (at [31], referring to reasoning of Dowsett J in Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 5; 250 FCR 341 that was effectively endorsed by the plurality in the High Court in UBS v Tyne ). Given the agreement to settle the Circuit Court proceeding, the ter…
Arrowsmith v Micallef
[2013] QCA 143 Para 18

…isite for the relevance of evidence extrinsic to the deed. The authority to which the appellant refers in this connection ( Arrowsmith v Micallef [2013] QCA 143; [2015] 2 Qd R 208 at [44] (Peter Lyons J, White and Gotterson JJA agreeing)) appears to accept that, apart from cases of ambiguity, extrinsic evidence c…
Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen
[2011] VSCA 23 Para 11

…The ordinary meaning of words used in a contractual document is a question of fact (see eg Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v R [2011] VSCA 23; 203 IR 396 at [33] (Nettle JA)), but such issues of interpretation have long been treated by the courts as questions on which evidence is not admissible (see eg Pepsi Seven-Up Bott…
Francis v Emijay Pty Ltd
[2006] QCA 62 Para 12

…rmer. (b) Allianz was cited with apparent approval by Keane JA (Williams JA and McMurdo J agreeing) in Francis v Emijay Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 62; 2 Qd R 5 at [27]-[28], and by Refshauge ACJ, Penfold and Burns JJ in Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v FAW Industries Pty Ltd and Insurance Australia Ltd [2017] ACTC…
Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited v PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited
[2004] ACTCA 28 Para 12

…ression “workers’ compensation” is discussed. (a)In Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited v PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited [2004] ACTCA 28 ( Allianz ) the Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal (Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Weinberg J) considered a (mandatory) exclusion clause in an insuran…
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 36 Para 9

…In any event, consistently with s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and the general principle referred to in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-362 (Dixon J), the Court would not be satisfied that the appellant had knowingly advanced a hopeless claim in order to attract federal jurisdiction on the basis of “in…
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34 Para 9

…In any event, consistently with s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and the general principle referred to in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-362 (Dixon J), the Court would not be satisfied that the appellant had knowingly advanced a hopeless claim in order to attract federal jurisdiction on the…
Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation
[1987] FCA 686 Para 15

…ect of which the Federal Court would not otherwise have jurisdiction, were “colourable” as explained by the Full Court in [ Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212], such that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear it. The issues in the appeal…
Pepsi Seven-Up Bottlers Perth Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation
[1995] FCA 1655 Para 11

…been treated by the courts as questions on which evidence is not admissible (see eg Pepsi Seven-Up Bottlers Perth Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 62 FCR 289 at 298-299 (Hill J)). The primary judge was therefore required to rely on her own understanding of what the expression “workers’ compensation … law”…
[2008] FCAFC 60
[2008] FCAFC 60 Para 20

…l Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808 at [29(f)] (McKerracher J) ( Prior ), citing Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd [2008] FCAFC 60; 167 FCR 372 at [127] (Gordon J)). The meaning and effect of cls 3(a) and 7(a) of the deed were (at least prima facie) reasonably clear and fatal to the…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
340, 352, 45, 545, 546, 570 7 mentions (from Para 2)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
10, 237 3 mentions (from Para 13)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
140 2 mentions (from Para 9)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
26.01 2 mentions (from Para 12)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 13)

Appeal from:	Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1401
File number:	QUD 524 of 2023
Judgment of:	BANKS-SMITH, MEAGHER AND KENNETT JJ
Date of judgment:	22 August 2025
Catchwords:	HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – federal jurisdiction – where the appellant had discontinued proceedings following the execution of a deed of release – where the appellant then sought to allege essentially the same facts in a new proceeding while seeking different relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) and in tort – where the primary judge summarily dismissed the proceeding – where the primary judge found the deed barred the new claims made under the FW Act – where the primary judge found the claims in tort were “colourable”, such that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear them – whether the primary judge erred in making such findings
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 45, 340, 352, 545, 546, 570 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 10, 237
Cases cited:	Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited v PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited [2004] ACTCA 28 Arrowsmith v Micallef [2013] QCA 143; [2015] 2 Qd R 208 Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v R [2011] VSCA 23; 203 IR 396 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212 Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16; 276 CLR 216 Francis v Emijay Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 62; 2 Qd R 5 Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd[2008] FCAFC 60; 167 FCR 372 Pepsi Seven-Up Bottlers Perth Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 62 FCR 289 Prior v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808 Qantas Airways Ltd v Gubbins (1992) 28 NSWLR 26 Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156; 254 FCR 1 Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 933 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; 256 CLR 507 Tucker v McPhee [2022] FCAFC 98; 292 FCR 666 Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 5; 250 FCR 341 UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; 265 CLR 77 Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v FAW Industries Pty Ltdand Insurance Australia Ltd [2017] ACTCA 2; 12 ACTLR 80
Division:	Fair Work Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs:	68
Date of hearing:	27 March 2025
Counsel for the Appellant:	M Black
Counsel for the Appellant:	Queensland Workplace & Workplace Injury Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Mackie
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ai Group Workplace Lawyers