Zakrzewski v Rodgers [2002] NSWIRComm 236

Zakrzewski v Rodgers [2002] NSWIRComm 236

The amended s106 summons proceeded against Mr Rodgers in his capacity as provisional liquidator of Desaro. Because the Supreme Court had refused leave to maintain proceedings against him in that capacity and the Court of Appeal had refused leave to appeal, the Commission could not lend itself to a procedure inconsistent with those requirements. Any attempt to maintain the proceedings was frivolous or vexatious within s162(2)(h) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, so the proceedings had to be dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract Proceedings / Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Proceedings After the Supreme Court Declined Leave to Proceed and the Court of Appeal Declined Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract Proceedings Under S106' 'leave to Proceed Against Court Appointed Liquidator or Provisional Liquidator' 'dismissal of Frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'practice and Procedure' 'corporations and Insolvency'] ['unfair Contract Proceedings Under S106' 'leave to Proceed Against Court Appointed Liquidator or Provisional Liquidator' 'dismissal of Frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' '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 S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract Proceedings / Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Proceedings After the Supreme Court Declined Leave to Proceed and the Court of Appeal Declined Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the s106 proceedings against Mr Rodgers in his capacity as provisional liquidator could be maintained after the Supreme Court refused leave to proceed and the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.' 'Whether maintaining the proceedings in those circumstances was frivolous or vexatious within s162(2)(h) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended s106 summons proceeded against Mr Rodgers in his capacity as provisional liquidator of Desaro. Because the Supreme Court had refused leave to maintain proceedings against him in that capacity and the Court of Appeal had refused leave to appeal, the Commission could not lend itself to a procedure inconsistent with those requirements. Any attempt to maintain the proceedings was frivolous or vexatious within s162(2)(h) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, so the proceedings had to be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 are dismissed with costs.']