FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
James Cook University v Ridd (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 132
Appeal from: Ridd v James Cook University [2019] FCCA 997
Ridd v James Cook University (No 2) [2019] FCCA 2489File number: QUD 567 of 2019 Judges: GRIFFITHS, RANGIAH AND SC DERRINGTON JJ Date of judgment: 31 July 2020 Cases cited: James Cook University v Ridd [2020] FCAFC 123 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Registry: Queensland Division: Fair Work Division National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr B Walker SC with Mr Y Shariff and Ms V Bulut Solicitor for the Appellant: Clayton Utz Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Wood QC with Mr B Kidston and Mr B Jellis Solicitor for the Respondent: Mahoneys Lawyers ORDERS
QUD 567 of 2019 BETWEEN: JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
Appellant
AND: PETER VINCENT RIDD
Respondent
JUDGES:
GRIFFITHS, RANGIAH AND SC DERRINGTON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JULY 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant have leave to rely upon the further amended notice of appeal dated 28 July 2020.
2.Order 1 of the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 16 April 2019 be set aside.
3.There be no order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRIFFITHS AND SC DERRINGTON JJ:
In the joint reasons for judgment of Griffiths and SC Derrington JJ in James Cook University v Ridd [2020] FCAFC 123 at [187]-[188], attention was drawn to the fact that James Cook University did not challenge order 1 made by the Federal Circuit Court on 16 April 2019. The University was invited to serve a further amended notice of appeal if it wished to have that order also set aside and the parties were given an opportunity to file brief outlines of submissions in respect of that matter if they so wished.
In the events that have occurred, the University has filed a further amended notice of appeal which seeks to set aside that order. Professor Ridd indicated that he did not oppose the further amended notice of appeal and did not propose to file any submissions in respect of it. He indicated that, although he did not oppose the additional order sought by the University, he did not give his consent “out of an abundance of caution not to prejudice [his] rights in respect of any application for special leave to the High Court of Australia”. We consider that, in these circumstances, an additional order should be made in the following terms:
1.The appellant have leave to rely upon the further amended notice of appeal dated 28 July 2020.
2.Order 1 of the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 16 April 2019 be set aside.
3.There be no order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Griffiths and SC Derrington. Associate:
Dated: 31 July 2020
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RANGIAH J:
In view of the reasons for judgment of Griffiths and SC Derrington JJ in James Cook University v Ridd [2020] FCAFC 123, I agree that it is appropriate to make the further orders proposed by their Honours.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rangiah. Associate:
Dated: 31 July 2020
- AGLC
- James Cook University v Ridd (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 132
- Case
- [2020] FCAFC 132
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the High Court addressed were whether the Federal Circuit Court correctly applied the law in relation to the university's claims for damages and whether it properly assessed the respondent's counter-claims. The court had to determine whether the university's claims for damages for breach of contract and misuse of confidential information were valid, and whether the respondent's counter-claims for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law were appropriately dismissed.
In granting the university special leave to appeal, the High Court highlighted the importance of accurately applying the law to the facts of the case, particularly in relation to the assessment of damages for breach of contract and the misuse of confidential information. The court found that the Federal Circuit Court had erred in its approach to the assessment of damages for the misuse of confidential information and in its handling of the respondent's counter-claims. The High Court set aside the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court and remitted the matter for rehearing, ensuring that the appropriate legal principles were applied.
The final orders of the High Court granted the university leave to rely upon its further amended notice of appeal and set aside the specific orders made by the Federal Circuit Court. No order was made as to costs. The case was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for further proceedings in accordance with the High Court's directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant have leave to rely upon the further amended notice of appeal dated 28 July 2020.
2. Order 1 of the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 16 April 2019 be set aside.
3. There be no order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.