In The Matter of Australian Jewish Press Pty Ltd The Rochester Communications Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Adler, Rodney Stephen & Ors [1996] FCA 357

In The Matter of Australian Jewish Press Pty Ltd The Rochester Communications Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Adler, Rodney Stephen & Ors [1996] FCA 357

The claims and pleadings based on s.275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW) could not be sustained because s.275(1) vested the relevant jurisdiction in the Industrial Court and not in any other court. Applying Smith v Smith (1986) 161 CLR 217, the Federal Court could not exercise that State statutory power by accrued, pendent or associated jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Corporations Law Sections 260 and 461; Notice of Motion to Strike Out Parts of Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim / Strike Out Application
Outcome
Strike out application granted in respect of the challenged parts of the amended application and amended statement of claim, with liberty to replead.
Legal Topics
['accrued or Pendent Jurisdiction' 'associated Jurisdiction' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Over State Industrial Relations Act Claim' 'strike Out of Pleadings']
['practice and Procedure' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'corporations Law' 'industrial Law'] ['accrued or Pendent Jurisdiction' 'associated Jurisdiction' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Over State Industrial Relations Act Claim' 'strike Out of Pleadings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Corporations Law Sections 260 and 461; Notice of Motion to Strike Out Parts of Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim / Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had accrued or pendent jurisdiction to hear claims depending on s.275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW).' 'Whether the Federal Court had associated jurisdiction under s.32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to hear claims depending on s.275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW).' 'Whether pleadings and claims for relief based on s.275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW) could be sustained where that provision vested jurisdiction in the Industrial Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The claims and pleadings based on s.275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW) could not be sustained because s.275(1) vested the relevant jurisdiction in the Industrial Court and not in any other court. Applying Smith v Smith (1986) 161 CLR 217, the Federal Court could not exercise that State statutory power by accrued, pendent or associated jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Strike out application granted in respect of the challenged parts of the amended application and amended statement of claim, with liberty to replead.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs h and 12-15 inclusive of the amended application and paras.64 and 79 of the amended statement of claim be struck out.' 'Liberty to the applicants generally to replead in the form of filing an amended application and an amended statement of claim, if they are so advised, provided that any such amendment...