Background
Carley Scott brought proceedings against Equatorial Launch Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) seeking relief for alleged breaches of a Commitment Amount Contract (as varied) and her employment contract. The litigation involved 49 issues for determination, all relating to Ms Scott’s entitlements under these two contracts. Justice Dowling’s earlier judgment on 19 June 2026 ([2026] FCA 788) addressed the substantive merits of these claims and found in Ms Scott’s favour on most issues.
This judgment addressed ancillary matters following the substantive determination, including the form of relief to be granted, the ordering of pre-judgment interest, and whether declaratory relief should be granted. The respondent, ELA, did not file submissions in response to Ms Scott’s proposed orders.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Dowling ordered ELA to pay Ms Scott $2,367,430.25 as damages for breach of the Commitment Amount Contract (as varied), plus $17,458.58 for breaches of the employment contract (comprising $14,715.62 for failure to reimburse expenses and $2,742.97 for failure to pay mobile phone allowances). The court found that pre-judgment interest under section 51A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) was appropriate.
The court ordered pre-judgment interest at rates set out in the Interest on Judgments Practice Note (GPN-INT), which applies a margin of 4% above the Reserve Bank of Australia cash rate. Interest on the Commitment Amount Contract breach runs from 9 December 2024—the date Ms Scott validly exercised her right to require payment. Interest on the expense reimbursement runs from 29 January 2025 (when properly identified in pleadings). Interest on the phone allowance was ordered on a tiered basis: from 21 November 2020 for the first $1,200, from 21 November 2021 for the second $1,200, and from 4 March 2022 for the balance.
Justice Dowling declined to grant declaratory relief sought by Ms Scott, finding no utility in making declarations that ELA breached the contracts. The court noted that the published reasons adequately explain the conclusions reached and the basis for relief ordered, without need for separate declarations. The question of costs was referred to a Registrar for determination, with scheduled directions for the filing of evidence and submissions by both parties.
Key Takeaways
- Courts will award pre-judgment interest under section 51A(1) of the Federal Court Act at the GPN-INT rates unless good cause is shown to the contrary.
- Pre-judgment interest runs from the date the obligation accrued and payment was required, not from the date of filing—where a claim is not properly particularised until later pleading, interest runs from the later date of proper identification.
- Declaratory relief will not be granted where it lacks utility and merely summarises conclusions already explained in detailed reasons for judgment.
- Costs issues may be referred to a Registrar for determination where parties have been partially successful, requiring evidence and submission on the question of costs.
Why It Matters
This judgment awards substantial damages (exceeding $2.38 million) against an employer for breach of contractual commitments, with pre-judgment interest calculated at rates that significantly amplify the recovery. The decision provides clarity on the temporal scope of pre-judgment interest obligations, establishing that interest runs from when payment was actually required or properly demanded, not from formal commencement of proceedings—a distinction that can materially affect quantum where claims are refined through pleading amendments.
The refusal of declaratory relief reinforces that courts will not use declarations as a summarising or vindicatory device where substantive reasons already explain the basis of judgment. This has practical consequences: parties seeking vindication or clarity on the court’s findings must rely on the published reasons and the substantive orders themselves, not supplementary declaratory statements.