Devane v Gati [1956] HCA 46

Devane v Gati [1956] HCA 46

It is proper in proceedings for breach of an industrial award to prosecute the individual partners forming the firm named in the award; the common law rule regarding naming of parties does not apply to such industrial proceedings.

Parties
Appellant / Informant: Thomas Patrick Devane; Respondent / Defendant: Albert Gati; Respondent / Defendant: Thomas Sebastian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court on Appeal From Chief Industrial Magistrate at Sydney
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Partnership Liability, Breach of Industrial Award, Prosecution of Partners
Industrial Law Employment Law Partnership Liability Breach of Industrial Award Prosecution of Partners

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Patrick Devane

Appellant / Informant

Albert Gati

Respondent / Defendant

Thomas Sebastian

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court on Appeal From Chief Industrial Magistrate at Sydney

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether individuals in a partnership can be prosecuted for breach of an industrial award when only the firm is named in the award schedule
  2. 2 Whether the common law rule requiring parties to be named as individuals applies to industrial proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

It is proper in proceedings for breach of an industrial award to prosecute the individual partners forming the firm named in the award; the common law rule regarding naming of parties does not apply to such industrial proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the court of petty sessions set aside
  • Informations remitted to the court of petty sessions for rehearing