Background
Wayne Robert Randall brought proceedings against Woodside Energy Ltd and several Woodside employees, seeking declaratory, compensatory and other relief for alleged contraventions of the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He alleged that, after suffering a workplace injury on a Woodside-operated offshore petroleum platform, he was subjected to adverse action for exercising workplace rights connected with that injury.
Mr Randall had received compensation under the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA). In interlocutory applications, he sought leave to amend his originating application and statement of claim to allege that compensation was instead payable under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), making the Western Australian scheme inoperative through s 109 of the Constitution. He also sought to add an unspecified Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) claim and sought injunctions restraining reliance on the WA legislation and requiring Woodside to pay compensation under the Commonwealth scheme.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Feutrill dismissed the application for leave to amend. Although amendments should generally be permitted where they assist in determining the real issues, leave may be refused where a proposed claim is futile, legally misconceived or has no reasonable prospect of success.
Unchallenged affidavit evidence established that Woodside was not, and had never been, a licensed corporation under the Commonwealth compensation legislation, and was not the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority. Mr Randall therefore had no reasonable prospect of showing that he was an “employee” covered by that Act. The proposed Disability Discrimination Act claims were also not explained in written or oral submissions, so their nature could not be identified. Because Mr Randall had not established a prima facie entitlement under the Commonwealth compensation scheme, the Court also dismissed his application for interlocutory injunctive relief. Costs were reserved.
Key Takeaways
- A proposed amendment may be refused where the new claim has no reasonable prospect of success.
- Coverage under the Commonwealth workers’ compensation scheme depended on Woodside being a Commonwealth-related employer or licensed corporation; the evidence established it was neither.
- An injunction failed because the applicant had not shown a prima facie case for compensation under the Commonwealth legislation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that an applicant seeking to expand a Fair Work general protections case must articulate a legally viable basis for each proposed additional claim. A constitutional inconsistency argument cannot proceed where the Commonwealth statute does not apply to the parties or injury in question.
It also confirms the practical link between amendment and interlocutory relief: where the proposed substantive claim is untenable, an injunction founded on that claim will ordinarily fail at the prima facie case stage.