Hart v Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department

I have had regard to all of the matters of fact contained in all of the documents provided for the Court's consideration by the parties. That exercise has not been without difficulty as a number of the documents relied upon by Ms Hart have handwritten comments which sometimes seek to clarify or dispute what was originally written, refer to other documents or only a part of a document and at times, without associated submission as to context, relevance or meaning to enable the Court to understand fully the use sought to be made of the documents or the associated comments.[3]

...

In relation to the complaint of inadequate particulars Ms Hart initially referred to "six folders of evidence" and then "spreadsheets would have the dates" and which reference "documents" which she said validate her claim. She referred to these documents as identifying the hours that she is owed money.[4]

...

It is difficult to evaluate the extent to which there may be merit in the claim being pursued by Ms Hart and the extent of any likely prejudice to Ms Hart should the extension of time sought by her not be granted. I accept the submission of the CE that the particulars provided by Ms Hart in her application-money claim dated 7 June 2024, in the context of a claim that totals $482,000, are inadequate. The references by Ms Hart, in her submissions, to "six folders of evidence", "spreadsheets [that] would have the dates" and generally other "documents" do not provide the particulars in a manner that enables either the CE or the Court to have a clear understanding of the basis of the claim that is being pursued and the methodology adopted by Ms Hart to calculate the amount claimed. Further particulars, in most of the areas identified by the CE and summarised in paragraph 27 of these reasons would be required, noting she has provided the exact amount claimed for the whole period of employment.[5] (Citations omitted)

1. I stated that that it is not the function of the Court to draw or settle a party's pleading,[6] and that a party's case is to be adequately stated in the pleadings and not by reference to other documents.[7]
2. I also stated that whilst a Court will be alert to the difficulties that may be experienced by a self-represented litigant, and provide assistance to the extent appropriate to enable a self-represented litigant to understand the obligations associated with the preparation of documents in the pre-trial process, they are still required to comply with the relevant rules that apply to proceedings in the Court.[8]
3. I determined the most appropriate way to proceed was to conduct a first trial limited to the claims for underpayment of hourly rates, personal leave, retention leave and public holiday pay in relation to the period 7 June 2018 to 25 May 2019. That period does not require an extension of time and would not burden Ms Hart with the jurisdictional issue at that time. The first decision included the expectation that this would allow Ms Hart to focus upon the narrower period of time and to adequately plead her case in relation to that period.[9] Ms Hart was directed to file and serve an amended Application/money claim by 23 April 2025.[10] The matter was then adjourned to a directions hearing on 29 May 2025.
4. An amended Application/money claim was filed by Ms Hart on 29 April 2025. The CE had been directed to file an Answer by 16 May 2025. On 13 May 2025, the solicitor for the CE wrote to Ms Hart putting forward the position of the CE that the amended Application failed to adequately plead Ms Hart's case in accordance with the orders made by me on 2 April 2025. Ms Hart was put on notice that, in the circumstances, the CE was not in a position to file an answer and would, instead, make application to strike out the amended application. The strike out application was then filed on 16 May 2025.
5. Ms Hart filed an application for directions dated 18 May 2025. Seeking to strike out the CE's application. The amended Application/money claim filed by Ms Hart was clearly deficient. It did not comply with the directions made by me on 2 April 2025. A number of the deficiencies identified in the first decision with respect to the original drafting permeated through the amended Application/money claim. On 25 June 2025, in court, I sought to explore with Ms Hart the basis of her claim, particularly related to the period 7 June 2018 to 25 May 2019. Ultimately, order one of the orders made that day summarised her case in relation to the first trial to be conducted:
   1. Following the hearing of oral argument this morning, it is noted that Ms Hart's claim by way of money claim for the period 7 June 2018 to 25 May 2019 relates to claimed underpayment for certain days that she took by way of personal leave during that period. The relevant days are 19 June 2018 to 22 June 2018 inclusive, 27 June 2018 to 29 June 2018 inclusive, 3 July 2018 to 6 July 2018 inclusive, 9 July 2018 to 12 July 2018 inclusive, 13 October 2018 to 26 October 2018 inclusive, and to 29 October 2018 to 1 November 2018 inclusive. Ms Hart claims that she was entitled to be paid by reference to the number of hours that she worked per day when she attended at work. She claims that she worked 10.22 hours per day. Her claim is on the basis that she was paid the equivalent of 8 hours per day when she took her personal leave, representing an underpayment of the rate per hour of 2.2 hours per day each day that she took by way of personal leave. She claims that she was paid when she worked by reference to an hourly rate of $46.90 per hour.
6. Having been satisfied that the CE had sufficient particulars to understand the case to be met at the first trial, the application for directions of the CE dated 16 May 2025 was dismissed. The application for directions of Ms Hart dated 18 May 2025 was dismissed as no further order was required upon that application. The CE was directed to file an Answer by 16 July 2025 and a directions hearing was listed for 7 August 2025.
7. Ms Hart filed a further application for directions dated 26 June 2015 (sic). She sought a listing to afford her an opportunity to 'debate' aspects of submissions advanced leading to the first decision. She also sought an opportunity to address further orders that Ms Hart considered should be made as to the content of the Answer to be filed by the CE. There was no merit in the application for directions and it was dismissed on 1 July 2025.
8. The CE having filed and served her Answer, on 7 August 2025 orders were made for the filing and serving of affidavit evidence. Ms Hart was directed to file and serve all affidavit evidence to be relied upon at the first trial by 31 October 2025. She did not do so. Instead, she filed the application for directions which is the subject of these reasons. She purported to file a supporting affidavit, which is subject to the same criticisms of documents previously prepared by Ms Hart as addressed in the first decision. She continued to provide documents with handwritten notations, highlighted sections, references to other documents and without adequate explanation as to meaning or relevance. The affidavit was not admissible by reference to s 32(1) and (1)(a) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014. In any event, Ms Hart did not adequately address either in the affidavit or in her subsequent oral submissions on 6 November 2025, how any of the documentation could lead the Court to conclude that either the CE, her counsel, or the "Crown" have been deceptive or have acted in a vexatious manner, or that the CE had exerted undue influence or pressure, or how the conduct could constitute an abuse of the Court's process or has caused unnecessary and ongoing disadvantage to Ms Hart. Nor did she prove any contravention of either the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) or the Fair Work Act 1994 (SA). She also failed to demonstrate how any suggested contravention could be relevant to the substantive proceeding and the orders sought in her application.
9. As best I could understand the submissions advanced by Ms Hart, the CE has acted inappropriately by not accepting as a proper pleading, the first Application/money claim in combination with the large volume of documents that she has produced to the respondent, and that she has somehow been disadvantaged by not being permitted to proceed to trial to address at the one time all of the claims for underpayment over the whole of the period of employment. There is no need to provide any further reason to those set out in the first decision as to why that is without merit.
10. Ms Hart also submitted that the CE's action, via her solicitor, of writing to Ms Hart by letter dated 13 May 2025, putting her on notice of an intended application to strike out the amended Application/money claim and the filing of that application only two days later, was evidence of an abuse of process of the Court and that the CE had behaved in a vexatious manner. For the reasons set out above, there is no merit to that submission.
11. The submissions of the CE were brief. They referred to the difficulty in understanding the basis of the application and the CE submitted that Ms Hart had failed to demonstrate any merit in her application. For the reasons given, those submissions were accepted.
12. The application for directions dated 28 October 2025 was thereby dismissed.

[1] [2025] SAET 28.

[10] Order 4 of the orders set out at the end of the first decision.