A routine affidavit had the solicitor’s name where the company officer’s should have been
A self-represented worker just won a procedural round against Boeing in the Federal Court of Australia - and it came down to who signed a single document.
The worker brought a claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 after Boeing Aerostructures Australia terminated her employment. As part of the litigation, the court ordered Boeing in September 2025 to hand over documents in three specific categories ahead of a mediation. The mediation went ahead in December 2025. It did not resolve the dispute.
In January 2026, the worker raised concerns that Boeing had not fully complied with the document handover order. The court referred the issue - known in the proceedings as the "Deficiency Application" - to a Registrar for determination.
The Registrar dismissed the application in May 2026. Boeing then pushed for a costs order, arguing the worker had been unreasonable in pressing the challenge. A key plank of that argument: Boeing had backed up its document list with a sworn statement, which the court itself had flagged to the worker as significant during an earlier hearing.
The Registrar agreed, ordering the worker to pay Boeing's costs from May 20, 2026.
The worker applied for a review of that costs order. And this is where things came unstuck for Boeing.
Under the Federal Court Rules, when a company is required to hand over documents in litigation, the sworn statement confirming the list must come from an officer of the company - someone inside the organisation who actually knows the relevant facts. The rule is strict. It does not extend to the company's external lawyers.
Boeing's document list, dated October 2, 2025, had been confirmed by a solicitor at Corrs Chambers Westgarth - the firm representing Boeing. That solicitor was not an officer of Boeing, and did not claim to be.
The distinction matters. As the court noted, handing over documents in litigation is the company's obligation, and it is the company's sworn word - not the solicitor's - that carries weight. The solicitor's job is to advise the company and help it comply, not to stand in for the company when swearing the statement.
The court drew a line between this case and a separate 2026 decision involving Ampol, where the confirming statement had been made by in-house counsel who was an employee of the company. That was a different situation - here, the solicitor was external.
Because Boeing's confirmation did not comply with the rules, one of the key foundations for its argument that the worker had been unreasonable fell away.
The court set aside the costs order on October 9, 2026, replacing it with no order as to costs. It also directed Boeing to re-serve its document list in a compliant form by October 16, 2026.
The court was careful to note two things. First, it was not finding that Boeing's document handover had actually been incomplete - that was not the question before it. Second, it was not suggesting Boeing's legal team had been anything other than honest in their earlier submissions about the process.
For HR teams managing employment litigation through external law firms, the practical takeaway is sharp: when your company is the party, compliance paperwork needs a company officer's name on it - not the solicitor's.
The substantive employment claim remains on foot. No findings have been made on its merits.
