Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 203

Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 203

Order (5), as entered, was inconsistent with Order (8) and with the Court's reasons adopting the respondents' submission that costs in the Industrial Court should be left to that Court. The entered order did not state the Court's intention and unintentionally constrained the Industrial Court's discretion as to costs, so it should be varied to refer to ordering costs in respect of the proceedings. Because the applicants maintained the erroneous constraining interpretation, they should pay the respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Vary an Entered Order in Supervisory Jurisdiction Proceedings / On the Papers
Outcome
Notice of Motion granted; Order (5) varied; applicants ordered to pay the costs of the Notice of Motion.
Legal Topics
['amending Judgments and Orders' 'slip Rule' 'supervisory Jurisdiction' 'costs Discretion of the Industrial Court of New South Wales']
['civil Procedure' 'industrial Law'] ['amending Judgments and Orders' 'slip Rule' 'supervisory Jurisdiction' 'costs Discretion of the Industrial Court of New South Wales']

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

Notice of Motion to Vary an Entered Order in Supervisory Jurisdiction Proceedings / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Order (5) made on 17 April 2009 and entered on 13 May 2009 should be varied because it did not express the Court's intention." "Whether the Industrial Court of New South Wales' discretion as to costs in matter No. IRC 5227 of 2000 should be constrained by Order (5)." 'Whether the applicants should pay the costs of the Notice of Motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Order (5), as entered, was inconsistent with Order (8) and with the Court's reasons adopting the respondents' submission that costs in the Industrial Court should be left to that Court. The entered order did not state the Court's intention and unintentionally constrained the Industrial Court's discretion as to costs, so it should be varied to refer to ordering costs in respect of the proceedings. Because the applicants maintained the erroneous constraining interpretation, they should pay the respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion granted; Order (5) varied; applicants ordered to pay the costs of the Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • ['Vary Order (5) pronounced on 17 April 2009 and entered on 13 May 2009 in proceedings No. CA 40121 of 2008 to read: Declare that the Industrial Court of New South Wales does not have jurisdiction to make any declarations or orders sought by the second to fourth respondents in matter No. IRC 5227 of 2000 other than...