Randall v Metso Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 133

Work Act 2009Randall v Metso Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 133 | Case summary | Zoe

Cases Cited (1)

The letter of 2 December 2025 indicated the applicant's intention to seek orders from the Court for the matter to be relisted so that directions could be made to progress the matter to a hearing.
The respondent opposed the applicant's foreshadowed application to the Court and communicated this to the applicant's lawyer by way of a letter from the respondent's lawyer dated 8 December 2025.
There does not appear to be anything in the issues in this proceeding that explain the change in the applicant's position with respect to mediation between April 2025, when she was willing to participate in a mediation, and November or December 2025, when she became unwilling to participate in the mediation.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant does not wish to waste the Court's time and suggested that proceeding to mediation, in circumstances where the applicant is taking a strong position, would not be an efficient use of the Court's time.
The Court acknowledges that not all matters are suitable for mediation and that, in some cases, a matter might be listed for hearing at an earlier date if it does not proceed to mediation. The Court also acknowledges that some aspects of the relief the applicant seeks in this matter, and in particular, the imposition of penalties, can only be made by Court order, even if there is an in principle agreement between the parties.
However, there are also other considerations. One such consideration is the potential for mediation to narrow the issues in dispute even if the whole proceeding does not settle. Counsel for the respondent referred the Court at the hearing to ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 600 (ACCC v Lux), in which RD Nicholson J described mediation as having the 'dual objective of achieving either a negotiated outcome or of clarifying the issues in dispute': at [29].
Ideally, parties participating in a mediation would be able to resolve the whole of the issues that arise in a Court proceeding. However, that is not always possible and it is not the only measure of a successful mediation. Any clarification of the issues, narrowing of the issues, progress towards an agreed statement of issues and facts or better understanding of the strengths and weakness of the respective case of each party that can be achieved in a mediation may benefit the parties moving forward in the litigation and may reduce the overall time and expense of progressing the matter to a final hearing. The conduct of the litigation and any interlocutory steps that should be taken may also be discussed at a mediation.
Further, participating in a mediation in good faith, even if the matter cannot resolve and the parties are instead focused on clarifying and narrowing the issues, is consistent with the overarching objective in s 190 of the FCFCOA Act and consistent with the parties' obligations under s 191(1) of the FCFCOA Act and the Court's expectations as referred to in the practice direction. Narrowing the issues or agreeing facts may reduce the cost to the parties of preparing for a final hearing and the time required by the Court to hear the matter, which are outcomes that are consistent with the overarching purpose in s 190 of the FCFCOA Act.
I observe, without any criticism, that the reason for the applicant's seemingly entrenched position is not explained in the evidence before me. I do, however, acknowledge the submission of Counsel for the respondent that many parties commence mediation with a strong view of what they hope to achieve, or 'fairly entrenched positions', and one purpose of mediation is to see whether those positions can be adjusted. In ACCC v Lux, RD Nicholson J referred to changes to the Federal Court Rules which allowed a matter to be referred to mediation without consent (as does s 191(3) of the FCFCOA Act) and acknowledged that the changes 'reflect a view that mediation may be productive even if a party is initially a reluctant participant'.
The Registrars of this Court are highly skilled mediators and do an excellent job of facilitating discussion between parties and assisting the parties to narrow or resolve the issues between them. Given the many things that may be achieved at mediation, I do not consider that the applicant taking an entrenched position before even hearing from the mediator or the respondent means that the mediation would necessarily be unproductive.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)