Bernard George Madden v Electromagnetic Spectrum Pty Limited and others [2006] NSWIRComm 49

Bernard George Madden v Electromagnetic Spectrum Pty Limited and others [2006] NSWIRComm 49

The motion was dismissed because the respondents failed to comply with Court orders and procedures, did not provide satisfactory explanations for late appearances, non-attendance at the conciliation hearing, and the delay until 15 February 2006 in seeking to vacate a hearing date known since November 2005; taking into account the prejudice to the applicant, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to vacate the ex parte hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Respondents' Notice of Motion to Vacate an Ex Parte Hearing Date and Seek Further Procedural Orders
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant/respondent on the motion.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'notice of Motion' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'compliance With Court Orders' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'civil Procedure'] ['unfair Contract' 'notice of Motion' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'compliance With Court Orders' 'costs']

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 S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Respondents' Notice of Motion to Vacate an Ex Parte Hearing Date and Seek Further Procedural Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ex parte hearing set down for 20 February 2006 should be vacated.' 'Whether the respondents had provided satisfactory explanations for failing to file appearances earlier, failing to attend the conciliation hearing, and delaying the application to vacate the ex parte hearing date.' 'Whether costs should be awarded on the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the respondents failed to comply with Court orders and procedures, did not provide satisfactory explanations for late appearances, non-attendance at the conciliation hearing, and the delay until 15 February 2006 in seeking to vacate a hearing date known since November 2005; taking into account the prejudice to the applicant, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to vacate the ex parte hearing.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant/respondent on the motion.

Orders

  • ['The application by notice of motion was dismissed.' 'The costs of the motion were awarded to Mr Madden.']