Federal Court of Australia

Gall v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 5) [2026] FCA 1053

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Pursuant to r 39.05(e) and (h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), paragraph [1697] of Gall v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 4) [2026] FCA 967 be amended as follows:

In relation to Common Question 29(a), the applicant’s Underpayment Loss was not assessed using the methods described in 29(a)(i) and (ii) and was instead assessed by the method in 29(a)(iii). To be clear, the applicant’s Underpayment Loss was assessed by deciding, on the evidence and by inference, what it was more likely than not that the applicant would have been paid had Dominoids and MC Pizza known during the Relevant Period that the Award rates applied. The assessment is not a matter simply of calculating the difference between the rates of pay and terms and conditions prescribed by the Award and comparing that to the rates of pay and terms and conditions that the applicant was in fact paid or to which he was entitled pursuant to the Agreements.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MURPHY J:

1    On 22 July 2026, the Court published Gall v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 4) [2026] FCA 967, being the reasons for judgment in the trial of the common questions in this proceeding (Reasons).

2    At paragraph [1697] of the Reasons, the Court sought to answer Common Question 29, as drafted and provided to the Court by the parties. Due to a mistake by the parties in drafting Common Question 29(a)(iii), that part of the question is incoherent. I did not notice the mistake and in my view, the answer to Common Question 29(a) in the first sentence of paragraph [1697] of the Reasons is incoherent as a result. The error in the question is an error by the parties, but the issue assumed significance because the applicant changed the way he put his case in relation to the need for a counterfactual. The type of error to which I have referred can be rectified under either r 39.05(e) or (h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), either may apply.

3    Pursuant to r 39.05(e) and (h), the Court will amend paragraph [1697] of the Reasons to remove the first sentence. The paragraph will read as follows:

In relation to Common Question 29(a), the applicant’s Underpayment Loss was not assessed using the methods described in 29(a)(i) and (ii) and was instead assessed by the method in 29(a)(iii). To be clear, the applicant’s Underpayment Loss was assessed by deciding, on the evidence and by inference, what it was more likely than not that the applicant would have been paid had Dominoids and MC Pizza known during the Relevant Period that the Award rates applied. The assessment is not a matter simply of calculating the difference between the rates of pay and terms and conditions prescribed by the Award and comparing that to the rates of pay and terms and conditions that the applicant was in fact paid or to which he was entitled pursuant to the Agreements.

4    The answer to Common Question 29, being the measure of loss and damage to the applicant, is answered in paragraphs [1637] and [1697] of the Reasons, as amended.

5    The amendment will be published in the Reasons together with a corrigendum.

Associate:

Dated:    3 August 2026