Brigitte Lipman and anor v AG Lifestyle Management Pty Limited and anor [2002] NSWIRComm 188

Brigitte Lipman and anor v AG Lifestyle Management Pty Limited and anor [2002] NSWIRComm 188

The respondents were not relieved from the obligation to elect as to evidence because, although the question was finely balanced, the claims, evidence and proposed no case arguments did not constitute a special case under Davis. The applicants' evidence was not so palpably inadequate that further consideration would be an unnecessary waste of time, and the s106 claim and possible s109A issue required caution and consideration of the evidence and discretionary matters before bringing the case to an end prematurely.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondents' Application That Their No Case Submission Be Heard Without Their Being Called Upon to Make an Election as to the Calling of Evidence
Outcome
Respondents' application refused.
Legal Topics
['no Case to Answer Application' 'election as to Evidence' 'relief From General Rule' 'industrial Relations Act 1996 S106' 'industrial Relations Act 1996 S109 A']
['industrial Relations' 'practice and Procedure'] ['no Case to Answer Application' 'election as to Evidence' 'relief From General Rule' 'industrial Relations Act 1996 S106' 'industrial Relations Act 1996 S109 A']

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 S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondents' Application That Their No Case Submission Be Heard Without Their Being Called Upon to Make an Election as to the Calling of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' no case submission should be heard without the respondents being required to make an election as to the calling of evidence." 'Whether the circumstances were a special case warranting departure from the general rule stated in Davis v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited (1998) 81 IR 364.' "Whether the applicants' evidence was so palpably inadequate, or the legislative impediment under s109A so clear, that the case should not proceed to further evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were not relieved from the obligation to elect as to evidence because, although the question was finely balanced, the claims, evidence and proposed no case arguments did not constitute a special case under Davis. The applicants' evidence was not so palpably inadequate that further consideration would be an unnecessary waste of time, and the s106 claim and possible s109A issue required caution and consideration of the evidence and discretionary matters before bringing the case to an end prematurely.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application refused.

Orders

  • ['The respondents may not be relieved of the obligation to make an election as to evidence, if the no case submission is pressed.']