contractor without contracts, page-5

For those that would like to get a greater appreciation of what the issue is, I have included extracts from the Judgement of Justice Foster. You will note that there is nothing new here, the Statement of Claim submitted was requested to be stuck out by WOR this application was rejected.

I my opinion this does not give the claim any greater creditability but I may be wrong.


3. The plaintiff (Larry Crowley) have leave to amend his Amended Statement of Claim filed on 15 February 2016 so as to address the matters raised at pars 33 and 37 of Reasons for Judgment of Foster J published this day (Crowley v WorleyParsons Limited [2017] FCA 3) and also so as to correct any other typographical, spelling or referencing errors in the said Amended Statement of Claim, such Further Amended Statement of Claim to be filed and served by 2 February 2017.

1 On 4 October 2013, the plaintiff, Larry Crowley, purchased 423 ordinary shares in the defendant (WorleyParsons) (WOR securities) on the financial market operated by ASX Limited (ASX). He still held all of his WOR securities as at the date of the commencement of this proceeding.

3 The plaintiff brings this proceeding as a representative proceeding pursuant to Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976(Cth) on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons who:
(a) Acquired an interest in WOR securities during the period from 14 August 2013 to 19 November 2013 (relevant period);
(b) Have suffered loss or damage by reason of the conduct of WorleyParsons pleaded in the plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim filed on 15 February 2016 (ASOC); and
(c) Have, as at the date of the commencement of this proceeding, entered into a litigation funding agreement with JustKapitalLitigation Pty Limited in relation to this proceeding.

10 It is important to note at this point that WorleyParsons has not sought an order that the present proceeding be summarily dismissed. It has confined its present application to an attack on the ASOC pursuant to r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

For all of the above reasons, I do not think that WorleyParsons has made out its case that the ASOC should be entirely struck out nor do I consider that the specific paragraphs referred to in par 2 of its Interlocutory Application should be struck out. Although I have suggested that the plaintiff should amend his Statement of Claim in some very minor respects, I have found that the ASOC should not be struck out in whole or in part. WorleyParsons has failed to secure any part of the relief which it claimed in its Interlocutory Application. I see no reason why costs should not follow the event.
98 Accordingly, I propose to dismiss that Interlocutory Application with costs.
99 I also propose to grant leave to the plaintiff to amend the current iteration of his Statement of Claim in order to clarify one or twomatters so that his Statement of Claim is in a form with which the plaintiff is entirely content as at the present time.
100 I also propose to order WorleyParsons to file its Defence with a view to having the pleadings in this matter settled as soon as possible. The matter will then be listed for case management before me. At that further case management hearing, I wish to be informed as to the current status of the competing class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Walsh v WorleyParsons Ltd) as there will inevitably be a need on the next occasion that the matter is before the Court for the parties and the Court to consider how best to deal with the existence of that other proceeding.