Federal Court of Australia

Scott v Equatorial Launch Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 3) [2026] FCA 881

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    ELA pay Ms Scott the amount of $2,367,430.25 as a consequence of its breach of the Commitment Amount Contract as varied.

2.    ELA pay pre-judgment interest on the amount of $2,367,430.25, calculated in accordance with s 51A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court Act), at the rates set out in paragraph 2.2 of GPN-INT (Interest on Judgments), from 9 December 2024.

3.    ELA pay Ms Scott the amount of $14,715.62 as damages for breach of her employment contract by failing to reimburse expenses incurred by her in the course of her employment.

4.    ELA pay pre-judgment interest on the amount of $14,715.62 calculated in accordance with s 51A(1) of the Federal Court Act, at the rates set out in paragraph 2.2 of GPN-INT (Interest on Judgments) from 29 January 2025.

5.    ELA pay Ms Scott the amount of $2,742.97 as damages for breach of her employment contract by failing to pay to her the mobile phone allowance.

6.    ELA pay pre-judgment interest on the amount of $2,742.97 calculated in accordance with s 51A(1) of the Federal Court Act, at the rates set out in paragraph 2.2 of GPN-INT (Interest on Judgments) from 21 November 2020 for the first $1200.00, from 21 November 2021 for the second $1200.00 and from 4 March 2022 for the balance.

7.    By 4:00 pm on 24 July 2026, each party file and serve any evidence on which it intends to rely on the question of costs, together with an outline of submissions of not more than 10 pages.

8.    By 4:00 pm on 7 August 2026, each party file and serve any evidence on which it intends to rely in response to any evidence filed under order 7 above, together with an outline of submissions in reply of not more than 10 pages.

9.    The question of costs be referred to a Registrar of the Court for determination.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DOWLING J:

1    The circumstances of this proceeding are explained in my reasons delivered on 19 June 2026: Scott v Equatorial Launch Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2026] FCA 788. Those reasons explain that while the parties agitated a joint list of 49 issues for determination, all of those issues related to Ms Scott’s entitlements under a Commitment Amount Contract made between her and ELA and under her employment contract.

2    For the reasons published, I found that Ms Scott is entitled to $2,367,430.25 under the Commitment Amount Contract, as varied, (VCAC) and $17,458.58 under her employment contract. I ordered the parties to provide proposed orders reflecting the Court’s reasons and any short submissions in support of those orders. Ms Scott filed proposed orders and submissions. Nothing was filed by the respondent.

Orders for breaches of contracts

3    As explained, my reasons conclude that ELA breached the VCAC and the employment contract. I found that Ms Scott is entitled to $2,367,430.25 pursuant to the VCAC: see reasons at [50]-[97], [176]-[197], [207], [225]-[252], [253]-[292], [301]-[307], [363]-[371], [372]-[384], [385]-[397], [430]. I found that Ms Scott is entitled to $17,458.58 pursuant to the employment contract: see reasons at [398]-[429], [431].

4    Ms Scott seeks orders that ELA pay her these amounts. It is appropriate that I make those orders.

Orders for interest

5    Ms Scott seeks orders for pre-judgment interest pursuant to s 51A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in respect of the amounts owed to Ms Scott under the VCAC and her employment contract.

6    Section 51A(1) provides that in proceedings for the recovery of any money, the Court shall, upon application, unless good cause is shown to the contrary, either: (a) order that there be included in the sum for which judgment is given interest at such rate the Court thinks fit; or (b) order a lump sum in lieu of such interest.

7    Ms Scott seeks for pre-judgment interest to be awarded at the rates set out at paragraph 2.2 of the Interest on Judgments (GPN-INT) Practice Note. Those rates are:

(a)    in respect of the period from 1 January to 30 June in any year – the rate that is 4% above the cash rate last published by the Reserve Bank of Australia before that period commenced; and

(b)    in respect of the period from 1 July to 31 December in any year – the rate that is 4% above the cash rate last published by the Reserve Bank of Australia before that period commenced.

8    I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order pre-judgment interest at those rates.

9    Ms Scott claims pre-judgment interest on the amount ordered under the VCAC from 9 December 2024. That is the date on which I determined Ms Scott validly exercised her right to require payment under the VCAC and the payment was required to have been made: see reasons at [372]-[384]. It is appropriate that pre-judgment interest be calculated from that date.

10    Ms Scott claims pre-judgment interest on the amount ordered in relation to reimbursement of the expenses under the employment contract from the date “when the statement of claim was first filed”. That is 26 July 2022. However, that Statement of Claim did not particularise the reimbursement. That was not done until the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim was filed on 29 January 2025. That is the date from which the reimbursement of expenses was properly identified and demanded and should have been paid. It is appropriate that pre-judgment interest be calculated from that date.

11    Ms Scott claims pre-judgment interest on the amount ordered for the phone allowance under the employment contract from the date that entitlement arose “during the course of the employment”. That entitlement was $1200.00 each year, for the period of two years, three months and 10 days. Ms Scott commenced her employment on 22 November 2019. Pre-judgment interest should be ordered on the first $1200.00 from the date of the end of the first year of the employment contract being 21 November 2020, on the second $1200.00 from the date of the end of the second year of the employment contract being 21 November 2021, and on the balance from the date of termination being 4 March 2022. Those are the latest dates from which I determined that the amounts should have been paid.

Are declarations appropriate?

12    Ms Scott seeks declarations, pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court Act, that ELA breached the VCAC and her employment contract.

13    Ms Scott says those declarations are appropriate because they will: (a) “synthesise the outcome of a complex judgment”; (b) “explain the basis on which the Court is to order that ELA pay Ms Scott a significant sum of money”; and (c) “record the outcome of hard-fought litigation in which serious allegations of wrongdoing were made against Ms Scott and therefore serve to vindicate her rights”.

14    Section 21(1) of the Federal Court Act provides that the Court may, “in civil proceedings in relation to a matter in which it has original jurisdiction, make binding declarations of right, whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed”. The power to grant declaratory relief is a discretionary power which “[i]t is neither possible nor desirable to fetter … by laying down rules as to the manner of its exercise”: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 at 581-582 (Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ), quoting Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 437 (Gibbs J).

15    However, the power to grant a declaration of right is a power that should be exercised where there will be some utility: see Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Limited (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 99 at [3] (Allsop CJ, Middleton and Davies JJ) and the cases cited.

16    Further, a declaration is not an appropriate way of recording in a summary form, conclusions reached by the Court in reasons for judgment: Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde [2001] FCA 61; 105 FCR 437 at [8] (Gray, Branson and North JJ). Although, other considerations might apply in regulatory or civil penalty proceedings: see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2017] FCAFC 113; 254 FCR 68 at [93] (Dowsett, Greenwood and Wigney JJ).

17    I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to make, or that there is utility in making, the declarations sought. The published reasons explain the conclusions that I reached. Those reasons explain the basis for the relief otherwise ordered. The orders also identify the basis on which they are made.

Orders dealing with Costs

18    Ms Scott was not successful in all claims made by her under her Second Further Amended Statement of Claim. ELA was successful in some of the defences raised by its Third Further Amended Defence.

19    Ms Scott proposes that each party file and serve any evidence on which it intends to rely on the question of costs, along with an outline of submissions, and then each party file and serve any evidence and submissions in reply. She proposes a mechanism by which the parties then advise whether they seek a hearing or a determination on the papers.

20    I will make orders for the filing and serving of evidence and submissions, and evidence and submissions in reply, but otherwise refer the question of costs to a Registrar of the Court for determination.

Disposition

21    For the reasons explained I will make orders for the amounts of $2,367,430.25 and $17,458.58, for pre-judgment interest, for the exchange of submissions and evidence, and for the referral to a Registrar of the Court to determine costs.

Associate:

Dated:    7 July 2026