Wan v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 1803

Wan v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 1803

The Full Bench was dealing with leave to appeal and refusal of leave depended on whether an arguable appealable error was shown. It considered the applicant's proposed grounds, found no error of law or material fact in the Senior Deputy President's decision, and demonstrated that there was no relevant intermediate error. Its refusal of leave therefore involved no jurisdictional error, and the applicant's procedural fairness submissions did not identify error in the Full Bench's reasons or jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Writs of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition Concerning Refusal of Leave to Appeal by a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission / Full Court Determination After Proceedings Were Remitted From the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'redundancy' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'leave to Appeal' 'prerogative Writs' 'procedural Fairness']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'redundancy' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'leave to Appeal' 'prerogative Writs' 'procedural Fairness']

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 for Writs of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition Concerning Refusal of Leave to Appeal by a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission / Full Court Determination After Proceedings Were Remitted From the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Full Bench was required to determine for itself whether there was a valid reason for the termination under s 170CG(3)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.' "Whether the Full Bench erred by considering whether the Senior Deputy President's findings and conclusions were open on the evidence." 'Whether the Full Bench reversed the onus of proof concerning whether there was a valid reason for termination.' 'Whether alleged breaches of natural justice by the Senior Deputy President or the Full Bench justified prerogative relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Bench was dealing with leave to appeal and refusal of leave depended on whether an arguable appealable error was shown. It considered the applicant's proposed grounds, found no error of law or material fact in the Senior Deputy President's decision, and demonstrated that there was no relevant intermediate error. Its refusal of leave therefore involved no jurisdictional error, and the applicant's procedural fairness submissions did not identify error in the Full Bench's reasons or jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the proceedings."]