Angyal & Ors v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales & Ors [2005] NSWCA 155

Angyal & Ors v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales & Ors [2005] NSWCA 155

The Industrial Relations Commission lacked jurisdiction under s 106 because the chambers arrangements were not contracts whereby a person performs work in an industry. The barrister did not relevantly perform work for another person under those arrangements, and although the company's clerical staff worked in an industry, their work was not performed directly under the impugned contracts or arrangements in the required jurisdictional sense.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Prerogative Relief in the Nature of Prohibition / Court of Appeal Hearing and Determination of Summons to Restrain Further Proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission
Outcome
Summons granted; orders restraining the Industrial Relations Commission from hearing and determining the proceedings commenced by the second and third opponents.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contracts' 'industrial Relations Commission Jurisdiction' 'performance of Work in an Industry' 'prerogative Relief in the Nature of Prohibition']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law'] ['unfair Contracts' 'industrial Relations Commission Jurisdiction' 'performance of Work in an Industry' 'prerogative Relief in the Nature of Prohibition']

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

Summons Seeking Prerogative Relief in the Nature of Prohibition / Court of Appeal Hearing and Determination of Summons to Restrain Further Proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Industrial Relations Commission had jurisdiction under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 because the impugned contracts or arrangements were contracts whereby a person performs work in any industry.' 'Whether a barrister using chambers under the arrangements relevantly performed work for another person under those contracts or arrangements.' 'Whether the provision of clerking, secretarial and administrative services by staff employed by the chambers company meant that the impugned contracts or arrangements led directly to the performance of work in an industry.' 'Whether the Court should grant prohibition at this stage rather than allow the Industrial Relations Commission to decide jurisdiction for itself.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Industrial Relations Commission lacked jurisdiction under s 106 because the chambers arrangements were not contracts whereby a person performs work in an industry. The barrister did not relevantly perform work for another person under those arrangements, and although the company's clerical staff worked in an industry, their work was not performed directly under the impugned contracts or arrangements in the required jurisdictional sense.

Court Disposition

Summons granted; orders restraining the Industrial Relations Commission from hearing and determining the proceedings commenced by the second and third opponents.

Orders

  • ['Orders made in accordance with prayers 2 and 3 of the summons.' "The second and third opponents are to pay the claimants' costs of the proceedings." 'The claimants are to pay the costs of the first opponent as a submitting defendant with liberty to include those costs in the costs recoverable from the second and...