FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wachler v JNCTech Managed Services Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 815
Continue reading Wachler v JNCTech Managed Services Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wachler v JNCTech Managed Services Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 815
- Case
- [2025] FCA 815
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Wachler v JNCTech Managed Services Pty Ltd, the applicant, Ms Wachler, sought leave to amend her pleadings to include a new cause of action against the second and third respondents, alleging that they induced the first respondent to breach its employment contract with her. The case involved a dispute over discriminatory and sexually harassing conduct, as well as claims of breach of contract. The first respondent, JNCTech Managed Services Pty Ltd, was in the process of liquidation, which had implications for the ongoing proceedings.
The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether to grant the applicant leave to amend her pleadings to include a new cause of action against the second and third respondents. This required consideration of the circumstances under which such leave could be granted, as well as the potential impact on the respondents and the overall efficiency of the litigation process. The court also had to determine the appropriate costs associated with the amendments and any consequential costs incurred by the respondents.
The court granted the applicant leave to amend the pleadings, acknowledging the need to address the new cause of action despite the liquidation of the first respondent. The court considered that the amendment was necessary to fully address the applicant’s claims and to avoid potential injustice. The court also assessed the impact on the respondents and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the interlocutory application and any consequential costs. This decision aimed to balance the interests of all parties while ensuring that the applicant could pursue her claims effectively.
The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether to grant the applicant leave to amend her pleadings to include a new cause of action against the second and third respondents. This required consideration of the circumstances under which such leave could be granted, as well as the potential impact on the respondents and the overall efficiency of the litigation process. The court also had to determine the appropriate costs associated with the amendments and any consequential costs incurred by the respondents.
The court granted the applicant leave to amend the pleadings, acknowledging the need to address the new cause of action despite the liquidation of the first respondent. The court considered that the amendment was necessary to fully address the applicant’s claims and to avoid potential injustice. The court also assessed the impact on the respondents and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the interlocutory application and any consequential costs. This decision aimed to balance the interests of all parties while ensuring that the applicant could pursue her claims effectively.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Applicant be given leave pursuant to rr 8.21(1)(g)(i) and 16.53 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to amend, respectively, the Originating Application and the Amended Statement of Claim to add a cause of action in tort against the Second and Third Respondents alleging that they induced the First Respondent to breach its contract of employment with the Applicant.
2. The Applicant pay to the Second and Third Respondents the costs of and incidental to the Interlocutory Application for leave to amend the Originating Application and Amended Statement of Claim to add the cause of action referred to in Order 1.
3. The Applicant pay to the Second and Third Respondents the costs thrown away by reason of the amendments referred to in Order 1.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
For the reasons that follow, leave is granted to the Applicant to amend the Originating Application and the ASOC to add a new cause of action in tort against the Respondents alleging that they induced the First Respondent to breach its employment contract with the Applicant.BACKGROUNDSubstantive proceeding The substantive proceeding in this matter was commenced by Originating Application and Statement of Claim (SOC) filed on 16 September 2022. The SOC was amended on 9 November 2022. The Originating Application alleges that:(1)The First Respondent discriminated against the Applicant in contravention of s 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth);(2)The Respondents engaged in sexually harassing conduct against the Applicant in contravention of s 28B of the Sex Discrimination Act;(3)The First Respondent, by operation of s 106 of the Sex Discrimination Act, is statutorily liable for the Respondents’ contraventions of s 28B of the Sex Discrimination Act; and (4)The Second Respondent, by operation of s 105 of the Sex Discrimination Act, is statutorily liable for the Third Respondent’s contraventions of s 28B of the Sex Discrimination Act. The Applicant was an employee of the First Respondent, and the Respondents were directors and employees of the First Respondent. On the basis of these allegations, the Applicant seeks relief including by way of a declaration and damages pursuant to s 46PO(4)(d) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), and damages against the First Respondent for breach of contract. Winding up of the First Respondent The First Respondent is a corporation that is being wound up. A liquidator was appointed on 4 July 2023. On 12 July 2023, the Respondents’ solicitor sent an email to the Applicant’s solicitor which stated:We confirm our telephone conversation regarding the above matter.We confirm our clients [sic] instructions and as indicated in our discussion that a liquidator has been appointed for JNCTech.Please let us know if you require further information regarding the above. By reply email on the same day, the Applicant’s solicitor noted that a liquidator had been appointed:Thank you for your email.We note that a liquidator has now been appointed for the First Respondent.However, as you are aware, our client also has claims against the Second Respondent and Third Respondent, which she wishes to pursue.We note that the Court has expressly asked for our availability to attend a case management hearing on 10 August 2023 or 11 August 2023. On 4 October 2023, the parties attended a case management hearing before Wigney J. His Honour shared with the parties a letter received from the liquidator dated 3 October 2023 indicating that he had been appointed and a creditor’s report had been issued. On 5 October 2023, the liquidator’s office independently notified the Applicant’s solicitor of the liquidator’s appointment. The intervening period In her affidavit dated 26 May 2025, Ms Liav Hava Benstock deposed that, having reviewed the Applicant’s solicitor’s file, between the case management hearing on 4 October 2023 and the unsuccessful mediation held on 16 September 2024, the parties “were focused on preparing their respective cases for hearing, and neither addressed the fact that the proceedings had not been discontinued against the First Respondent on the basis it was in liquidation”.
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.