Rizkalla v CDC Geelong Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 249

This case began as a workplace dispute between a bus driver and his employer, but the Federal Court decision itself was about court procedure. Wael Rizkalla had worked for CDC Geelong Pty Ltd since late 2018. His employment ended on 15 November 2024. He then brought Federal Court proceedings after obtaining a certificate from the Fair Work Commission under s 368(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Rizkalla's case was framed as a general protections claim under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act. He alleged that CDC Geelong took adverse action against him after he raised workplace safety concerns, including concerns about rostering and fatigue management, and after he participated in lawful union activities. He also joined individual respondents, alleging they were involved in the contraventions.

The respondents said the real reason for the disciplinary action and dismissal was very different. Their position, as recorded in the extract, was that CDC Geelong received a complaint on 25 October 2024 that Mr Rizkalla had been driving unsafely, stood him down on full pay while investigating the incident, concluded that he had breached employment policies, and terminated his employment for serious misconduct and for that reason only.

The extract shows a sequence of events that often appears in Fair Work litigation. The employee raised rostering concerns on 22 October 2024. He attended a union meeting on 25 October 2024. There were issues about his shift, meal break and travel reimbursement. He was stood down on 28 October 2024, lodged a grievance the same day, attended an investigation meeting on 30 October 2024, took part in a show cause meeting on 14 November 2024, and was summarily dismissed on 15 November 2024. He also alleged earlier managerial threats linked to his safety complaints.

That factual dispute was serious, but the court was not yet deciding who was right. Instead, the immediate question was whether the applicant's amended statement of claim was drafted in a way that complied with the Federal Court Rules and gave the respondents fair notice of the case they had to answer.

The proceeding moved through several procedural stages before the strike-out ruling. The applicant first filed an originating application. Later, a Registrar ordered the filing of a concise statement and concise response. The applicant's concise statement was five pages long and set out the important facts, relief sought, legal grounds and harm alleged. It referred to retaliation for workplace advocacy, unsafe rostering and fatigue management concerns, union activity, stand down and dismissal.

The respondents complained that the concise statement lacked precision and was incapable of properly and fairly conveying the case against them. Even so, they used their concise response to set out their own account of the unsafe driving complaint and the resulting investigation and dismissal.

When the matter came back before a Registrar in May 2025, the respondents sought orders for formal pleadings. The Registrar noted that the applicant was self-represented and questioned whether pleadings would necessarily improve matters, but appears to have accepted that the concise statement was poorly formulated and difficult to answer. Orders were then made requiring pleadings, and the applicant was strongly encouraged to obtain legal advice.

Importantly, the Registrar did not leave the applicant to guess what was required. The later orders of 3 June 2025 set out in detail what the statement of claim had to cover. For each alleged contravention, the applicant had to identify the section said to be breached, explain how the facts gave rise to the breach, identify each alleged instance of adverse action, identify each workplace right relied on, identify any protected attribute, explain how each individual respondent was involved under s 550, and set out the details of loss, compensation and any penalty sought.

The applicant then filed an amended originating application on 26 May 2025 and later a detailed statement of claim on 16 June 2025. The statement of claim was already lengthy at 46 pages including schedules. It covered parties, jurisdiction, legal framework, factual allegations, liability, adverse action, coercion, discrimination, enterprise agreement issues, National Employment Standards, wages, loss and relief. The respondents then filed an interlocutory application on 14 July 2025 to strike out that pleading.

On 11 September 2025, the applicant filed an amended statement of claim, apparently trying to fix the criticisms. But the amended pleading became even longer at 79 pages. It included schedules and a detailed list of numbered particulars in Schedule C, which were cross-referenced throughout the body of the pleading. According to the court, that attempt to improve the pleading arguably compounded the respondents' difficulties in preparing a defence.

The legal issue was narrow but important. The respondents did not submit that the applicant had no reasonable cause of action at all. The judgment expressly says they did not argue that the amended statement of claim failed to allege material facts capable of giving rise to one or more causes of action. Their challenge was directed to the form of the pleading.

That distinction matters. A strike-out application can be used to attack a pleading because it is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, evasive, ambiguous, likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay, or otherwise defective under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules. Here, the respondents' complaint was essentially that the amended statement of claim did not give fair notice of the case to be made at trial and was not capable of sensible response by way of defence.

The extract records several specific criticisms. The respondents said the pleading paid scant regard to the rules of pleading. They said it relied on a prolix narrative of slights, included chronological matters of evidence rather than material facts, pleaded contraventions in a rolled-up and aggregated way, left it unclear whether some matters were material facts or merely particulars, omitted necessary particulars for some allegations including conditions of mind, and failed to plead properly the involvement of the individual respondents.

The court approached the issue by reference to the basic function of pleadings. Pleadings define the issues in dispute and give notice to the opposing party of the case it has to meet, so procedural fairness is maintained. If a pleading is too unclear, too diffuse or too dependent on cross-referenced schedules and particulars, the opposing party may be unable to know what must be admitted, denied, not admitted or explained in a defence.

The judgment also refers to r 16.02 and other pleading rules, and to the broader case management provisions in the Federal Court of Australia Act. The practical point is that the court expects a pleading to identify the material facts that support each cause of action, not to bury those facts in a long narrative or in a schedule of particulars that has to be pieced together paragraph by paragraph.

Justice Horan struck out the amended statement of claim dated 11 September 2025 under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The applicant was given leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim by 24 April 2026. The court also ordered both sides to file written submissions about the costs of the interlocutory application and directed the parties to attend a case management conference before a Registrar before 10 April 2026 for the purpose of clarifying the issues of fact and law in dispute.

The decision was expressly procedural. The court did not determine whether CDC Geelong had contravened ss 340, 343, 346, 351 or any other provision of the Fair Work Act. It did not decide whether the unsafe driving allegation was true, whether the dismissal was pretextual, whether there had been coercion or discrimination, or whether any individual respondent was in fact involved in a contravention. Those issues remained for later stages, assuming a compliant pleading was filed.

The judgment is also notable for the court's treatment of the applicant as a litigant in person. The extract records that he was self-represented and had indicated a willingness to address defects in his current pleading. The court accepted that the respondents could not be expected to advise him how to plead his case, but considered that the parties might benefit from the assistance of a Registrar to reduce the risk of further pleading disputes. That is why the court not only granted leave to replead, but also ordered a case management conference to help clarify the issues before the next version of the pleading was prepared.

For businesses, that means a successful strike-out application may not end the proceeding. If the court considers the defects can be cured, especially where the applicant is self-represented, it may allow another attempt rather than dismissing the case outright.

There are two practical readings of this case for employers. The first is procedural. If you are served with a Fair Work claim in the Federal Court, do not assume you must immediately engage only on the merits. Review the pleading carefully. Does it identify the workplace rights relied on? Does it specify the adverse action alleged? Does it connect each alleged contravention to clear material facts? Does it explain the role of each individual manager said to be involved? If not, there may be grounds to seek further particulars, require repleading, or apply to strike out the pleading.

The second reading is substantive, even though the court did not decide the merits. The factual pattern described in the extract is a familiar risk area. An employee raises safety, fatigue or rostering concerns. The employee also engages in union activity or threatens to escalate concerns. Soon after, there is a disciplinary process, stand down, investigation or dismissal. Even where the employer believes the misconduct issue is genuine, the timing and surrounding communications can support an allegation that the stated reason was only a pretext.

The extract also shows how broad these cases can become. The applicant referred not only to general protections provisions such as ss 340, 341, 343, 346 and 351, but also to ss 44, 45, 50, 117 and 323, enterprise agreement clauses, and other workplace laws as context for workplace rights. He sought compensation, declarations, injunctions and pecuniary penalties. Individual respondents were joined under s 550. That means a dispute that starts with one dismissal can quickly expand into a multi-issue proceeding involving the company and managers personally.

Businesses should therefore pay close attention to documents and conduct before litigation starts. The extract refers to emails about roster changes, union meeting communications, stand down letters, investigation correspondence and the termination letter. Those documents often become the backbone of a later pleading. If your business is investigating alleged misconduct involving an employee who has recently exercised workplace rights, make sure the process, reasons and records are disciplined and internally consistent.

Finally, this case is a reminder that procedural wins can still be commercially useful. A defective pleading can create uncertainty, cost and unfairness for a respondent. Challenging it may narrow the issues, force the applicant to identify the real case, and improve the prospects of efficient case management. But it is not a substitute for preparing the factual defence. Here, the litigation continued.

The extract identifies a number of documents and legal provisions that shaped the dispute. On the factual side, the court refers to the Fair Work Commission certificate under s 368(3), an email dated 22 October 2024 raising concerns about roster changes and driver safety, emails regarding a union meeting on 25 October 2024, a stand down letter dated 28 October 2024, and a termination letter dated 15 November 2024 recording a finding of serious misconduct and summary dismissal.

On the legal side, the catchwords and extracted reasons refer to a wide range of Fair Work Act provisions, including ss 44, 45, 50, 117, 323, 340, 341, 343, 346, 351, 361, 545, 546, 547, 550 and 570. Not all of those provisions were decided in this interlocutory ruling. They were part of the pleaded framework or the relief sought. The procedural application itself turned on the Federal Court Rules, especially rr 16.02 and 16.21, with references also to rr 16.01, 16.03, 16.32, 16.41, 16.42, 16.43 and 16.51.

For a business reader, the key point is that the court expects a pleading to do more than list sections. It must connect each legal provision to the material facts said to establish the contravention. That includes identifying the alleged workplace right under s 341, the adverse action under Part 3-1, and the involvement of any individual under s 550. Where penalties are sought, the pleading also needs to identify the civil remedy provisions relied on and the basis for the relief claimed.

The judgment also refers to the overarching case management provisions in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), including ss 37M, 37N and 37P. Those provisions support the court's active management of proceedings so they are resolved justly, quickly, inexpensively and efficiently. The order for a case management conference before a Registrar fits within that broader approach.

The judgment was delivered on 13 March 2026 by Horan J in the Federal Court of Australia. The hearing of the interlocutory application took place on 21 October 2025. The orders show that the amended statement of claim was struck out, the applicant was given until 24 April 2026 to file a further amended statement of claim, and the parties were required to file costs submissions in March 2026. A case management conference before a Registrar was also ordered to occur before 10 April 2026.

Because this was an interlocutory decision, it should not be read as the final outcome of the employment dispute. It resolved a pleading issue and set the next procedural steps. The substantive allegations about adverse action, industrial activity, discrimination, wages, enterprise agreement breaches and dismissal remained to be determined later if the matter continued.