Filing named FCFCOA, Federal Court, former employer as defendants
In a proceeding brought by a former part-time then full-time employee of Woolworths Limited, Justice Simon Steward of the Australian High Court summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s application for a constitutional or other writ as an abuse of process.
Woolworths Limited employed the plaintiff in Penttila v Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) & Ors [2026] HCASJ 22 part-time from 17 January 2014 to 30 November 2015 and full-time from 30 November 2015 to 15 June 2017.
On 15 June 2017, Woolworths terminated the plaintiff's employment based on serious misconduct and paid out four weeks’ pay instead of notice and all accrued entitlements.
In proceedings initiated before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) on 3 February 2020, the plaintiff asserted that Woolworths had underpaid him during his employment.
On 29 June 2022, Judge Egan dismissed a summary judgment application filed on 9 December 2021 and a default judgment application filed on 9 April 2022. Egan denied the plaintiff's underpayment claim for both employment periods for lack of merit.
On 7 August 2023, Judge Meagher of the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.
On 12 February 2026, before the High Court, the plaintiff applied for a constitutional or other writ naming the following defendants: the FCFCOA (Division 2), the Federal Court of Australia, and Woolworths. The plaintiff also filed three interlocutory applications seeking various orders.
Justice Steward of the High Court of Australia summarily dismissed the plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ as an abuse of process under rr 25.09.3(b) and 28.01.2(c) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The justice decided that the application sought to invoke jurisdiction on a “confused or manifestly untenable” basis and lacked any rational legal argument that could support the requested relief.
Justice Steward held that the plaintiff, who exhausted the appellate process, was attempting to reopen the trial issues, which would be permissible only in exceptional circumstances. In seeing no such exceptional circumstances, the justice considered that:
In the circumstances, the High Court justice found it appropriate to dismiss the plaintiff’s interlocutory applications without an oral hearing under rr 25.09.1 and 13.03.1.
Justice Steward found it futile to substantially extend the time, as the plaintiff requested.
The High Court justice ordered the plaintiff to pay Woolworths’ costs of and incidental to the application.
Here are some recent employment and labour law decisions.
The Federal Court issued a 10 July 2026 decision dismissing a concert pianist’s claims that the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra took adverse actions against him following his statements in August 2024 that Israel had committed war crimes by targeting journalists in Gaza.
The Federal Court made an 18 June 2026 decision denying the leave to appeal sought by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s former employee, who alleged that she signed a settlement deed under duress, given her unfortunate personal and family circumstances at the time.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest employment and labour law news on the main page!
