Vitale v The Trustee for the Davis Bros Unit Trust

In *Vitale v The Trustee for the Davis Bros Unit Trust*, Jarrett J considered an application to strike out certain paragraphs of a statement of claim. The applicant, Mr Vitale, alleged that he was coerced into signing trust deeds by the respondents, who threatened to withhold his pay and prevent him from working for them again if he did not comply. The applicant also claimed that he was illiterate and partially deaf, which impaired his ability to understand the documents presented to him.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's statement of claim, as particularised, pleaded facts sufficient to disclose a cause of action for coercion under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the alleged conduct constituted an unlawful threat or action intended to coerce the applicant in relation to the exercise of his workplace rights, including his right to superannuation entitlements and his right to make inquiries about his workplace rights.

Jarrett J reasoned that for a claim of coercion under section 343(1)(a) and (b) of the *Fair Work Act*, the applicant must plead facts demonstrating that a person organised or took, or threatened to organise and take, action with the intent to coerce the applicant into not exercising, or exercising in a particular way, a workplace right. The court found that some paragraphs, particularly those relating to the applicant's illiteracy and the specific threats made regarding pay and future employment, did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action for coercion as pleaded. However, other paragraphs, which alleged threats of dismissal if the applicant pursued his superannuation claim, were considered to disclose a cause of action for coercion in relation to his right to inquire about workplace rights.

Consequently, Jarrett J ordered that several paragraphs of the statement of claim be struck out, with leave granted to replead certain others. The applicant was directed to file an amended statement of claim, and the respondents were ordered to file a defence. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.