← All cases

[2022] NSWSC 1032

Saridas v Papuan Oil Search Ltd (No 2)

1. Pursuant to Rule 13.4(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the Plaintiff’s claims as outlined below are dismissed: a. The claims relating to breaches of the contract of employment and repudiatory conduct as contained in paragraphs 5 to 15 and 26 of the Plaintiff’s amended statement of claim filed 6 April 2022 (Statement of Claim); b. The claim that the Deed of Release executed by the parties dated 19 November 2020 (Deed of Release) is void and of no effect as contained in paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim; c. The claim that the Deed of Release had an implied term as contained in paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim; and d. The claims relating to alleged contraventions of Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as contained in paragraph 34. 2. Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Plaintiff’s amended statement of claim be amended: a. By inserting the introductory words “After the Deed of Release was entered” into paragraph 35; and b. deleting the words “34 and” in paragraph 36. 3. The Defendant is to file and serve any submissions in reply on the question of costs of the strike out/dismissal motion filed 2 May 2022, by 15 August 2022. 4. The Plaintiff is to file and serve a further Amended Statement of Claim by 22 August 2022; 5. The Plaintiff is to inform the Defendant which categories of the Notice to Produce dated 22 March 2022 (NTP) are pressed by 26 August 2022; 6. The parties are then to confer on what remains in issue. 7. The Defendant is to file and serve a further Amended Defence to the further Amended Statement of Claim by 12 September 2022; 8. The Defendant is to file and serve submissions in relation to its Notice of Motion filed 1 April 2022 (NTP Notice of Motion) by 16 September 2022; 9. The Plaintiff is to file and serve submissions in reply relating to the NTP Notice of Motion by 30 September 2022; 10. The Plaintiff is to file and serve any Reply to the further Amended Defence by 3 October 2022; 11. The matter be listed for a hearing to determine the question of costs and the Defendant’s NTP Notice of Motion on a date to be determined by the Court at 10 am on 12 October 2022; and 12. Liberty to restore the matter to the list on 1 days’ notice.

Catchwords

CIVIL PROCEDURE — parties directed to confer on orders — order in issue — order that statement of claim be amended to reflect findings of prior judgement

Cases cited

  • Saridas v Papuan Oil Search Ltd[2022] NSWSC 825

Legislation cited

  • Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
  • Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) § 13.4

Judgment

  1. [1]

    In June 2022 I concluded that aspects of Ms Saridas’ claims could not be pursued, being legally untenable. I directed the parties to confer on outstanding objections to the further amended statement of claim and the orders which needed to be made to reflect conclusions which I had reached in the judgment: Saridas v Papuan Oil Search Ltd [2022] NSWSC 825.

  2. [2]

    The parties later agreed on almost all of the orders to be made.

  3. [3]

    What Papuan Oil Search proposed was:

  4. [4]

    When the matter was before me on 25 July 2022 the position was that the orders were agreed, but were not then made, because of the need to find a further hearing date for the outstanding motion relating to the production of documents and agreeing a timetable for the hearing of that motion.

  5. [5]

    It later emerged that an error had been made as to instructions which had been given. Thus order 1d. was in issue, although it was agreed that paragraph 34 of the further amended statement of claim should be dismissed. The parties provided written submissions about the dispute.

The further amended statement of claim

  1. [6]

    Ms Saridas’ employment terminated on an agreed date in November 2020, after the parties had entered the deed of release. I concluded that claimed breaches of the whistleblower provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), after the deed had been executed, could not be dismissed as being legally untenable: at [130]-[138].

  2. [7]

    Paragraphs 34 to 37 of the further amended statement of claim pleaded:

The parties' cases

  1. [8]

    Papuan Oil Search argued that:

  2. [9]

    For Ms Saridas it was submitted that:

Conclusion

  1. [10]

    In the result, I am satisfied that paragraphs 35 - 37 cannot be dismissed, given what I decided in the June judgement, but that 35 and 36 need to be amended, to reflect those conclusions. Paragraph 35 by the insertion of the introductory words “After the Deed of Release was entered” and paragraph 36 by deleting the reference to paragraph 34.

Orders

  1. [11]

    For these reasons I order that:

Unofficial copy. Source: NSW Caselaw. Refer to the official version for authoritative text.