Manefield v Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW Inc T-as Child Care New South Wales [2010] NSWIRComm 85

Manefield v Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW Inc T-as Child Care New South Wales [2010] NSWIRComm 85

The respondent is a trading corporation; its trading activities constitute a substantial proportion of its overall activities. By operation of s 16(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the applicant's unfair contract claim. Section 16(3)(m) does not preserve jurisdiction for employment contract disputes between industrial organisations and employees.

Parties
Applicant/respondent on Motion: Bruce Manefield; Respondent/applicant on Motion: Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW Inc T/as Child Care New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Jurisdictional Challenge (notice of Motion), Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for relief dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Jurisdiction, Trading Corporations, Industrial Organisations
Industrial Law Employment Law Constitutional Law Unfair Contract Jurisdiction Trading Corporations Industrial Organisations

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Manefield

Applicant/respondent on Motion

Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW Inc T/as Child Care New South Wales

Respondent/applicant on Motion

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Jurisdictional Challenge (notice of Motion), Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is a trading corporation for the purposes of s 51(xx) of the Constitution and s 16(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to determine the applicant's summons for relief under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether regulation of internal affairs under s 16(3)(m) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) applies

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is a trading corporation; its trading activities constitute a substantial proportion of its overall activities. By operation of s 16(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the applicant's unfair contract claim. Section 16(3)(m) does not preserve jurisdiction for employment contract disputes between industrial organisations and employees.

Court Disposition

Application for relief dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The summons for relief filed on 5 May 2009 by Bruce Manefield is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • The respondent shall have seven days to file submissions on costs with the applicant having a further seven days in which to reply. Unless a party indicates a desire to be heard orally on costs, the question will be determined on the papers.