Taiki v Pilbara Iron Company Services Pty Ltd
[2023] FedCFamC2G 1183
•13 December 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Taiki v Pilbara Iron Company Services Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 1183
File number: PEG 241 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS Date of judgment: 13 December 2023 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out statement of claim – statement of claim does not disclose arguable cause of action – statement of claim contains content that is likely to be embarrassing or cause delay in the proceeding – appropriate to strike out statement of claim and give applicant an opportunity to replead. Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 725
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.06, Sch 1
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.02, 16.21
Cases cited: Dahler v Australian Capital Territory [2014] FCA 946
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70
Shelton v National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd [2004] FCA 1393
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 42 Date of hearing: 28 November 2023 Place: Perth Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J McLean Solicitor for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers ORDERS
PEG 241 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: GEOFREY TAIKI
Applicant
AND: PILBARA IRON COMPANY SERVICES PTY LTD
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:
13 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Amended Statement of Claim filed on 12 September 2023 is struck out.
2.The applicant is to file and serve a new statement of claim by 4.30pm on 1 February 2024.
3.There be no order as to costs of the application in a proceeding filed by the respondent on 3 October 2023.
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 LADHAMS:
INTRODUCTION
The application before the Court is an application in a proceeding filed by the respondent to the substantive proceeding, Pilbara Iron Company Services Pty Ltd (PICS). PICS seeks orders that the amended statement of claim filed on 12 September 2023 (Amended Statement of Claim) by the applicant, Mr Taiki, be struck out and that Mr Taiki be given an opportunity to replead his case.
By way of background, Mr Taiki was employed by PICS from January 2016 to September 2022, when he was dismissed.
On 15 December 2022 Mr Taiki filed an application in this Court, accompanied by a ‘Form 2: Claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging dismissal in contravention of a general protection’ (Form 2), alleging that he was dismissed in contravention of the provisions in Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act). The matter was referred to mediation before a Registrar of this Court but could not be resolved at mediation.
On 21 July 2023 I made an Order by consent which, amongst other things, required Mr Taiki to file and serve a statement of claim by 23 August 2023. Mr Taiki filed a statement of claim in compliance with the Order.
PICS’ lawyers wrote to Mr Taiki on 30 August 2023 identifying a number of serious deficiencies in the statement of claim and suggesting that the deficiencies need to be rectified before PICS is required to file its defence.
On 5 September 2023 I made a further Order by consent which, amongst other things, required Mr Taiki to file and serve an amended statement of claim by 20 September 2023. Mr Taiki filed the Amended Statement of Claim on 12 September 2023 in compliance with the Order.
THE STRIKE OUT APPLICATION
On 3 October 2023 PICS filed an application in a proceeding (strike out application) seeking the following orders:
1. The Amended Statement of Claim filed 12 September 2023 be struck out.
2. The Applicant have leave to replead within 28 days of this Order.
3. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of the Application.
The strike out application is supported by an affidavit of Elizabeth Tacey Moran, who is a lawyer employed by Mills Oakley, the solicitors for PICS. Ms Moran’s affidavit sets out some of the background to this proceeding and annexes correspondence sent to Mr Taiki on 30 August 2023 identifying the deficiencies in the original statement of claim.
The basis for PICS seeking that the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out is clearly explained in PICS’ submissions filed on 14 November 2023. At [14]-[17], PICS submitted (footnotes omitted):
14.The deficiencies in the [Amended Statement of Claim (ASOC)] are material, are likely to cause prejudice and embarrassment, and ultimately preclude the Respondent from drawing its defence.
15. First, the ASOC does not identify a clear cause of action:
(a)the basis on which the Applicant says he is entitled to “lost wages” is not clear; and
(b)although the Form 2 alleges a contravention of the general protections provisions of the FW Act, the ASOC instead adopts the language of “unfair dismissal”, and does not plead that the Applicant’s dismissal was because of his exercise of any workplace right. The spectre of an allegation of a contravention of a civil penalty provision entitles the Respondent to be put on notice, in clear and precise terms, of the particular case it will be required to meet at trial.
16.Second, a large number of paragraphs in the ASOC contain allegations that are vague, irrelevant, or are not allegations of material fact. The inclusion of these paragraphs in the pleading will not only put the Respondent to unnecessary cost, but will cause delay and embarrassment in the conduct of the proceeding. See, without limitation:
(a)in Part A, under the heading “Introduction”, paragraphs [d], [e], [i], [j], [k], [m];
(b)in Part A, all paragraphs under the heading “Material facts relevant to the claim”;
(c)in Part A, under the heading “Particulars of the claim”, paragraphs [1], [3] – [9], [16], [17], [20] (noting further that although the point is not taken for the purposes of this Application, it would be appropriate for the Applicant to abandon the formulation of “the Claimant claims…” in any further amended pleading);
(d)the entirety of Part B, which appears to be largely a replication of Part A; and
(e)the entirety of Part C, which appears to be largely a replication of part of Part A.
17.Third, the ASOC fails to particularise a number of allegations, including ostensibly material allegations as to when representations were made, complaints were raised, and/or conversations occurred. Whilst the Respondent acknowledges that the need for particulars would not in and of itself necessitate the strike-out of a pleading, here the absence of particulars is so pervasive that, when considered in context of the other deficiencies identified in this Outline, it is a consideration that supports the ASOC being struck out.
Mr Taiki filed a reply to the strike out application, but this largely proposes orders that PICS produce various evidentiary documents. Mr Taiki also seeks orders relating to the production of documents and evidence in an application in a proceeding that he filed on 11 October 2023, supported by an affidavit filed on the same date. I have explained to the parties that I propose to determine the strike out application before addressing Mr Taiki’s application in a proceeding. Mr Taiki also filed an affidavit on 21 November 2023 which annexes documents purporting to address the concerns raised by PICS in relation to the Amended Statement of Claim.
LEGISLATION AND PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE STRIKE OUT OF PLEADINGS
Rule 1.06(3) and items 11 and 14 of Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) together provide that rr 16.02(1)(a), (b) and (d) and 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR), relating to the content of pleadings and applications to strike out pleading respectively, apply to applications filed in this Court.
Rule 16.02 of the FCR relevantly provides:
(1) A pleading must:
(a)be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs, each, as far as practicable, dealing with a separate matter; and
(b)be as brief as the nature of the case permits; and
…
(d)state the material facts on which a party relies that are necessary to give the opposing party fair notice of the case to be made against that party at trial, but not the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved; and…
Rule 16.21(1) of the FCR provides:
A party may apply to the Court for an order that all or part of a pleading be struck out on the ground that the pleading:
(a)contains scandalous material; or
(b)contains frivolous or vexatious material; or
(c)is evasive or ambiguous; or
(d)is likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceeding; or
(e)fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action or defence or other case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or
(f)is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
The purpose of pleadings is to define the issues in the proceeding with sufficient clarity to enable the parties to understand, and to have the opportunity to meet, the case against them: Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658 at 664.
In relation to the obligation to state the material facts upon which a party relies, Katzman J said in Dahler v Australian Capital Territory [2014] FCA 946 at [105]-[106]:
105The obligation of the pleader is to state the material facts. That does not mean all the facts or all the relevant facts. A fact is material if it is essential to the cause of action. The expression refers to the fact or combination of facts that give rise to a right to sue: Do Carmo v Ford Excavation Pty Limited (1984) 154 CLR 234 at 245 per Wilson J. The applicant’s pleadings did not plead material facts, nor was it as brief as the nature of the case permitted. The statement of claim was discursive. It offended the rule about pleading facts, not evidence. The primary judge was correct to describe it as “replete with detailed matters of evidence”. Numerous paragraphs contained detailed extracts from correspondence. No attempt was made to summarise the effect of the correspondence or to relate it to one of the elements of the cause of action. Nor was any made to plead the material facts. Many of the allegations were peripheral to the cause of action. Where inessential facts are pleaded, they are liable to be struck out as prejudicial and embarrassing to the fair trial of the action: Bernard Cairns, Australian Civil Procedure, 10th edition, LawBook Co, 2014 (“Cairns”), [6.180]. The observations that Dawson J made in East West Airlines (Operations) Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1983) 49 ALR 323 at 326 (“East West”) could equally have been made in the present case:
[E]ven if the statement of claim discloses a cause of action, it does so only in the course of pleading immaterial facts which at best are merely evidentiary and at worst are not relevant at all. The fair trial of the action would be delayed if the defendants were required to plead to these allegations and if other interlocutory procedures could be directed to them. There are also…matters pleaded which are embarrassing in that they are not susceptible of being pleaded to by the defendants.
106In East West paras 1046 of the statement of claim was struck out, though not all the paragraphs were objectionable. Dawson J considered it was undesirable to try to “sift out” the necessary parts from the unnecessary and embarrassing passages.
In circumstances where PICS has submitted that parts of the Amended Statement of Claim will cause delay and embarrassment in the conduct of the pleading, it is relevant to consider what is meant by saying that a pleading is likely to cause embarrassment. This was explained by Tamberlin J in Shelton v National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd [2004] FCA 1393 at [18] where his Honour said:
“Embarrassment” in this context refers to a pleading that is susceptible to various meanings, or contains inconsistent allegations, or in which alternatives are confusingly intermixed, or in which irrelevant allegations are made that tend to increase expense. This is not an exhaustive list of situations in which a pleading may be embarrassing: see Bartlett v Swan Television & Radio Broadcasters Pty Limited (1995) ATPR 41-434. An example of an embarrassing pleading is where the pleading simply pleads a conclusion.
THE AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The substantive content of the Amended Statement of Claim appears in triplicate, under the headings ‘PART A – Court registry copy’, ‘PART B – Claimant’s copy’ and ‘PART C – Defendant’s service copy’, save for that the ‘PART A – Court registry copy’ contains an introduction that is not reproduced in the other parts. This repetition of parts of the Amended Statement of Claim is unnecessary in this Court. Only Part A is referred to in this judgment, but the comments made in relation to Part A would apply equally to the other parts of the Amended Statement of Claim, to the extent that the content of Part A is repeated in the subsequent parts.
In the introduction, Mr Taiki:
(a)identifies basic details of his employment;
(b)refers to an incident that occurred in March 2020, when Western Australia was preparing to go into lockdown, including a meeting convened by the superintendent of the mine site for members of the production team at which they were informed that they would be unable to leave the mine site during the Covid lockdown, the need to work an additional eight shifts and work for 22 days straight, that he was informed he would be compensated for those extra shifts, but was not, and that he raised the issue of the non-payment for the additional shifts with PICS’ management team (albeit the date or method of raising this is not identified); and
(c)referred to his dismissal.
The Amended Statement of Claim then contains a heading ‘Material facts relevant to the claim’ in which Mr Taiki lists a series of documents, which I infer is a list of evidence that he considers to be relevant to the application.
The next heading in the Amended Statement of Claim is ‘Particulars of the claim’. Under this heading, Mr Taiki again refers to the additional shifts he worked during the first Covid lockdown and claims that he was not paid to for these. He refers to communications with management and human resources employees of PICS about the additional shifts that he worked and their representation that a $3,000 ex gratia payment to all full-time employees was compensation for the additional shifts. There are references to particular emails Mr Taiki sent or received about this issue on 31 December 2021 and 8 April 2021 and a meeting on 1 February 2021. There is also a reference to something said at a confidential mediation before the Court. The section ends with a general assertion that Mr Taiki raised the issue of the eight days of non-payment right up to when his employment was terminated on 23 September 2022.
The next heading is ‘The Claimant claims he was unfairly dismissed’. In this section, Mr Taiki:
(a)refers to an incident in February 2022, where he was issued a written warning for performing an unauthorised U-turn, and denies that he performed an unauthorised U-turn;
(b)refers to an incident in July 2022 that he claims occurred whilst he was operating a 24M Grader, the investigation into the incident and communications about that investigation;
(c)claims that a section of a document referred to in his termination letter is irrelevant to the incident in July 2022;
(d)claims that any previous incidents dating back to 2017 were dealt with by PICS and Mr Taiki returned to work to perform his normal duties; and
(e)claims that with his employment terminated, other employees who worked the additional eight shifts during the first Covid lockdown in Western Australia will only be recognised for their efforts and PICS will carry on as normal as though nothing ever happened.
The relief claimed by Mr Taiki is not calculated and is simply described as compensation for being unfairly dismissed by PICS and compensation for loss of wages in March 2020.
SHOULD THE AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM BE STRUCK OUT?
I have carefully considered the Amended Statement of Claim and accept PICS’ submission that it should be struck out for the following reasons.
The Amended Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action
In assessing the Amended Statement of Claim, it is important to bear in mind that the application Mr Taiki has filed is an application under the Fair Work Act alleging contravention of a general protection. Based on the information in the Form 2, at a high level of generality, I understand Mr Taiki’s case to be that PICS took adverse action against him by terminating his employment because he exercised a workplace right to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to his employment, and thereby contravened s 340 of the Fair Work Act.
The Amended Statement of Claim does not expressly assert that Mr Taiki had or exercised any workplace right. It does not assert that PICS took any adverse action against Mr Taiki and it contains no allegation that PICS took adverse action against Mr Taiki because he exercised a workplace right.
Instead, the matters pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim appear to amount to an expression of disagreement with what I infer were the reasons for Mr Taiki’s dismissal and an assertion that Mr Taiki was unfairly dismissed. It is not open to Mr Taiki to make an unfair dismissal claim in a general protections proceeding, because s 725 of the Fair Work Act precludes this. Rather, the references to unfair dismissal serve only to confuse and obfuscate the real issues in this proceeding.
There is a large focus in the Amended Statement of Claim on Mr Taiki’s assertion that he was not paid for working eight additional shifts during the first Covid lockdown period. The precise relevance of this is not clear. For example, it is possible that Mr Taiki is referring to this as the subject of a complaint or inquiry in relation to his employment, relevant to the exercise of a workplace right. Alternatively, or additionally, it is possible that Mr Taiki refers to this as the basis of a claim that he was entitled to payment for these shifts, additional to the $3,000 ex gratia payment that he has referred to in the Amended Statement of Claim. If the latter is what Mr Taiki intended, it is not clear from the pleading the basis on which he claims to be entitled to additional payments, aside from a vague assertion that the superintendent told members of the production team that they will be compensated for working additional shifts. Relatedly, the basis upon which Mr Taiki claims to be entitled to ‘lost wages’ is unclear.
It is not appropriate for the respondent or the Court to have to guess what Mr Taiki intends by his Amended Statement of Claim. I accept the submission advanced on behalf of PICS that the Amended Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action and that it is appropriate for it to be struck out on this basis.
The Amended Statement of Claim contains content that it ambiguous or likely to cause embarrassment or delay in the proceeding
I accept the submission advanced on behalf of PICS that some parts of the Amended Statement of Claim contain allegations that are vague, irrelevant, or not allegations of material fact, and that the inclusion of these paragraphs is likely to cause delay and embarrassment in the conduct of the proceeding.
PICS has identified a number of paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim which it says would be likely to cause embarrassment or delay. It is not necessary to set out all of these in this judgment, but I do set out a few to explain why they are likely to cause embarrassment or delay in the proceeding.
For example, in relation to the eight additional shifts Mr Taiki claims that he was required to work during a Covid lockdown in March 2020, he pleaded that the superintendent informed him (and others) that they would be required to work additional shifts and that they would be compensated for working additional shifts, and then pleaded:
i)The Claimant claims he was never paid for those extra shifts worked in the first Covid19 Lockdown back in March 2020.
j)Employees and Cat 1 contractors across all Mine sites mined by the Defendant (Pilbara Iron Company Service’s Ply Ltd) who worked additional shifts during the first Covid19 lockdown in Western Australia were never paid for those additional shifts.
k)In the second and third Covid 19 Lockdown in Western Australia, employees and Cat 1 Contractors were paid $1500 per day by the Defendant (Pilbara Iron Company Service’s Pty Ltd) for each additional shift worked.
…
m)The Claimant claims till this day, the issue of the additional shifts (8 in total) worked by the Claimant in the first Covid 19 Lockdown in Western Australia was and still is unresolved.
The relevance of whether other people were paid for additional shifts and the amounts that were payable for additional shifts performed at a later date is not clear. Mr Taiki also does not clearly identify in the Amended Statement of Claim the amount of compensation that he claims he was entitled to be paid for performing additional shifts or the basis upon which he says he is entitled to be paid, although that may be something that could be addressed by further and better particulars. Mr Taiki’s assertion that the issue of the lack of payments for eight shifts is unresolved is also ambiguous or possibly inconsistent with other facts pleaded later in his Amended Statement of Claim, including in numbered paragraphs 3 to 9 under the heading ‘Particulars of the claim’, where he pleads:
3)The Claimant claims in an email dated 31st December 2021 the claimant received from the (Mine Manager Marandoo Mine Western Australia) to the Claimant it reads, the first lock down (March 2020) didn’t attract additional shift payments and the flexibility of team members was recognised by the $3000 ‘ex-gratia’ payment to all full-time employees and Cat 1 contractors as compensation for the additional shifts.
4)The Claimant asked the (Mine Manager Marandoo Mine Western Australia) and Human Resources (Rio Tinto) where is the document that states that the first lock down (March 2020) didn’t attract additional shift payments and the flexibility of team members was recognised by the $3000 ‘ex-gratia’ payment to all full-time employees and Cat 1 contractors as compensation for the additional shifts?
5)The Claimant claims in an email the claimant received from the (General Manager of Human Resources Pilbara Iron Western Australia) dated 8th April 2021 with attachment to the Claimant it reads there were no additional shifts worked back in March to July.
6)The Claimant claims the Defendant (Pilbara Iron Company Service’s Ply Ltd) also paid those employees that stayed at home during the first Covid 19 Lockdown the Ex-Gratia payment of $3000 just for staying at home.
7)The Claimant claims in a Meeting on February 1st, 2021, at Marandoo Mine with the (Mine Manager Marandoo Mine Western Australia) and Human Resources (Rio Tinto) thru Video Link the Claimant asked the question? , So the 8 days of additional shifts that Production Team 1 worked out of their normal roster was inclusive in the $3000 Ex-Gratia payment, the reply the Claimant received from the (Mine Manager Marandoo Mine Western Australia) and Human Resources (Rio Tinto) thru Video Link was, Yes that’s correct the 8 days was inclusive in the $3000.
8)…
9)The Claimant claims, the Defendant (Pilbara Iron Company Service’s Pty Ltd) paid those employees and Cat 1 Contractors who worked additional shifts in the second and third lockdown $1500 a day as agreed in the Payment agreement from the Greater Tom Price Management Team (Western Australia).
As can be seen from this extract, on the one hand, Mr Taiki claims that the issue of payment for working eight additional shifts has not been resolved, and on the other hand, refers to examples of where he has received a response to his inquiries that appears to suggest that the issue has been resolved.
I also note Mr Taiki’s pleading at numbered paragraph 20 under the heading ‘The Claimant claims he was unfairly dismissed’, where he said:
The Claimant claims with his employment Terminated by the Defendant (Pilbara Iron Company Service’s Pty Ltd) those employees and Cat1 contractors that worked additional shifts across all Mine Sites Mined by the Defendant (Pilbara Iron Company Service’s Pty Ltd) during the first Covid 19 Lockdown in Western Australia will only be recognised for their efforts and the Defendant (Pilbara Iron Company Service’s Pty Ltd) will carry on as normal as thou nothing ever happened.
This is confusing and ambiguous. At best, it appears to be a representation of Mr Taiki’s view of the consequence of his dismissal, and it is unclear how this is relevant to the issues in dispute. If this paragraph is intended to be a pleading asserting the reason why Mr Taiki claims he was dismissed, it does not do this, and it does not clearly put PICS on notice of the case it has to meet.
Under the heading ‘Material facts relevant to the claim’, Mr Taiki has simply listed a number of documents or types of evidence. These references to evidence do not amount to ‘material facts’ and the evidence by which material facts are to be proved does not need to be identified in the Amended Statement of Claim: see r 16.02(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules.
Those parts of the pleading that are ambiguous, confusing or seemingly irrelevant or inconsistent are likely to be embarrassing and are likely to cause delay and additional expense to both parties in the proceeding. They are appropriately struck out.
Should the whole of the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out?
I have considered whether it is appropriate to simply strike out some paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim. However, I do not consider that it would be useful in this case to try to sift out the paragraphs that can remain in the Amended Statement of Claim from those that are embarrassing, particularly in circumstances where the Amended Statement of Claim does not disclose an arguable cause of action. The more appropriate course is to strike out the whole of the Amended Statement of Claim and give Mr Taiki an opportunity to replead.
Additional detail provided by Mr Taiki
I have also considered the additional detail that Mr Taiki has provided in response to PICS’ concerns about his Amended Statement of Claim. These responses provide some additional detail but do not address the issues I have considered above. In any event, it is appropriate that Mr Taiki’s case be clearly articulated in his Amended Statement of Claim. It will only cause confusion and delay in the proceeding if PICS has to attempt to file a defence that responds not only to a statement of claim, but also to separate documents in which Mr Taiki has endeavoured to further explain the content of the Amended Statement of Claim.
I tried to clarify with Mr Taiki at the hearing of the strike out application exactly what he is claiming. When I referred him to his Form 2, he agreed that he was saying that PICS took adverse action against him because he made a complaint or inquiry in relation to his employment. However, at other times when Mr Taiki articulated his case, he claimed that he was ‘unlawfully dismissed’ and ‘unfairly dismissed’. He disputed the factual basis of the reasons given for his termination as set out in the termination letter, and he suggested that he was dismissed because he took the issue, by which I understand him to mean the eight shifts that he claims he was not paid for, outside of the mine site and to others, including the CEO of the Pilbara mine and human resources. There is a lot of confusion in how Mr Taiki articulates his cause of action, and some of the language used, such as ‘unfair dismissal’, is unhelpful, given that this is not an unfair dismissal claim. While it is possible to understand the gist of Mr Taiki’s claim, it is not currently possible to understand the claim sufficiently for PICS to meaningfully respond to it, and the general protections claim, to the extent that I understand the gist of it from the Form 2, is not reflected in the Amended Statement of Claim.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, I have decided to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim in this proceeding. Mr Taiki will be afforded a further opportunity to file and new statement of claim. While the application in a proceeding proposes that Mr Taiki have leave to replead within 28 days, I am mindful that that timeframe may be difficult at this time of year if Mr Taiki seeks legal advice or assistance. I therefore have given Mr Taiki a longer period to file any new statement of claim.
Counsel for the PICS indicated at the hearing that PICS no longer seeks an order that Mr Taiki pay PICS’ costs of the strike out application. I agree that that is appropriate in the circumstances of this matter and therefore there is no order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding forty-two (42) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams. Associate:
Dated: 13 December 2023
1
5
3