Noakes & Anor v Adams & Anor [2002] NSWIRComm 272

Noakes & Anor v Adams & Anor [2002] NSWIRComm 272

The respondents failed to show that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Taking the applicants' case at its highest, there was evidence capable of founding s106 jurisdiction, including arrangements concerning supply of counter meals, sale of alcohol, and requirements to conduct, clean, repair, maintain and decorate the cafe/restaurant premises. In any event, the interlocutory stage was not an appropriate time to determine the jurisdictional objection because the respondents had not clearly demonstrated a lack of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondents' Notice of Motion Challenging Jurisdiction and Applicants' Notice of Motion to Stand Over That Motion
Outcome
Respondents' notice of motion dismissed; applicants' notice of motion upheld; costs reserved if not agreed.
Legal Topics
['section 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'occupation of Premises Used as Cafe/restaurant' 'lease or Arrangement Requiring Performance of Work' 'strike Out Application' 'interlocutory Jurisdiction Challenge']
['industrial Relations' 'unfair Contracts' 'jurisdiction'] ['section 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'occupation of Premises Used as Cafe/restaurant' 'lease or Arrangement Requiring Performance of Work' 'strike Out Application' 'interlocutory Jurisdiction Challenge']

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 Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondents' Notice of Motion Challenging Jurisdiction and Applicants' Notice of Motion to Stand Over That Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was evidence capable of founding jurisdiction under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 because the applicants performed work in an industry under a contract, arrangement or collateral arrangement with the respondents.' 'Whether the Court should determine or dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage.' "Whether the respondents' notice of motion should be dismissed and the applicants' notice of motion upheld."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to show that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Taking the applicants' case at its highest, there was evidence capable of founding s106 jurisdiction, including arrangements concerning supply of counter meals, sale of alcohol, and requirements to conduct, clean, repair, maintain and decorate the cafe/restaurant premises. In any event, the interlocutory stage was not an appropriate time to determine the jurisdictional objection because the respondents had not clearly demonstrated a lack of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notice of motion dismissed; applicants' notice of motion upheld; costs reserved if not agreed.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' notice of motion is dismissed." "The applicants' notice of motion is upheld." 'Costs reserved if the parties are unable to reach agreement.']