Summary dismissal also covers pleadings under public sector governance laws
In proceedings against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Federal Court summarily dismissed claims under these Commonwealth statutes: the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), the Privacy Act 1988, the Copyright Act 1968, and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011.
In a further amended statement of claim (FASOC) filed on 13 November 2025, the applicant in Brookhouse v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] FCA 667, also alleged that the respondent Australian Broadcasting Corporation breached the following Commonwealth statutes:
In correspondence with the applicant, the respondent identified various issues with his pleadings, including his standing to bring some claims, the limitation period under the FW Act, and the failure to particularise claims.
The respondent sought to summarily dismiss these proceedings under ss 19 and 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
The respondent argued that the applicant abused the court’s process and lacked a reasonable cause of action and reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding in whole or in part.
The Federal Court of Australia summarily dismissed the applicant’s proceedings under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules. The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s application costs, as agreed or assessed.
The court said it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims. Finding fundamental flaws in the applicant’s proceedings, the court explained that he lacked standing to bring some claims and reasonable prospects of success in the FASOC allegations.
The court found that the applicant pleaded a wide range of general conclusory allegations without any particular basis, covered more than two decades of employment in his claims, and failed to inform the respondent of the case it had to defend.
Regarding the FASOC claims under the PGPA Act, the ABC Act, the Archives Act, and the Public Service Act, the court saw no reasonable prospects of success.
The court ruled that the applicant inappropriately treated these public sector governance statutes as if they conferred actionable private rights and enabled declaratory or compensatory relief in an individual employee’s favour.
Regarding the copyright claims, the court found the claims unparticularised in terms of the alleged acts and the requested statutory relief. The court determined that the applicant failed to:
Regarding the FW Act and its predecessor legislation, the court saw insufficient detail in the allegations of continuous contraventions, including adverse action and coercion under ss 340–343, a false or misleading representation of an employment relationship under s 345, and a misrepresentation of employment as an independent contracting arrangement under s 357.
The court added that the FASOC claims did not specify the “who, what, when, where” of the relevant false or misleading representations, workplace rights, and adverse action or coercion.
Lastly, given the applicant’s repeated opportunities to remedy the issues with his pleadings, the court did not offer him another chance to amend his statement of claim further.
