2 Court Orders Challenged as Domino's Appeals Gall Judgment

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises has lodged an appeal against the Federal Court judgment and orders in the Gall class action, keeping the company’s potential financial exposure unresolved. Cost orders have been stayed while the appeal proceeds, but no hearing date has been set.

  • Notice of appeal lodged with the Full Court of the Federal Court
  • Appeal challenges the 22 July judgment and 3 August orders
  • Cost orders stayed until the appeal is determined
  • Financial impact remains uncertain and unquantifiable
  • Leave to appeal may be required for claims involving other group members
An image related to Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited Add us as a preferred source on Google
Image © middle. Logo © respective owner.

Domino’s Challenges Gall Class Action Ruling

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (ASX:DMP) has lodged a notice of appeal against the Federal Court judgment delivered on 22 July 2026 and the related declarations and orders made on 3 August. The appeal takes the dispute into the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, following the July Federal Court judgment, which earlier coverage said found Domino’s liable over historical pay arrangements.

Cost Orders Put on Hold

The cost orders made in August have been stayed until the appeal is determined. That removes the immediate effect of those orders, but it does not resolve the company’s potential liability: Domino’s said the financial impact of the Gall class action remains uncertain and unquantifiable.

Leave May Be Needed for Wider Group Claims

Domino’s can appeal as of right where the judgment and orders bind lead applicant Riley Gall. For the aspects that bind other group members, the company said it may need leave to appeal and intends to ask the Full Court to hear that application alongside the appeal itself. The company’s earlier August appeal process had also left the wider group claims financially unresolved.

Hearing Date and Final Exposure Remain Open

No hearing date has been set, leaving both the timetable and the legal outcome open. Even after the appeal, any subsequent process for determining individual group members’ claims could affect the eventual financial result. For Domino’s, the next meaningful marker is likely to be the Full Court’s treatment of the leave application and the scheduling of the appeal.

Bottom Line?

The stay buys Domino’s time, not certainty; the eventual cost will depend on the appeal and any later assessment of individual claims.

Questions in the middle?

  • Will the Full Court grant leave for the parts of the case affecting other group members?
  • When will the appeal be listed, and how long might the process take?
  • Could any later assessment of individual claims produce a material financial liability for Domino’s?

Sources

1