Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd and anor [2005] NSWIRComm 40

Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd and anor [2005] NSWIRComm 40

Given the applicant failed to particularise the contract or arrangement with sufficient detail in the summons, and the proceedings may be capable of embracing the SUP agreement as part of an arrangement, it is not appropriate at this interlocutory stage to determine jurisdictional arguments or strike out the proceedings. The question of jurisdiction must await detailed determination after evidence is heard at the substantive hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion to Strike Out for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Respondents' notice of motion (to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction) dismissed; costs reserved; directions to file notice of motion for amendment given.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contracts' 'jurisdiction' 'non Competition Clause' 'collateral Arrangements' 'employment Termination' 'negative Covenants']
['industrial Law'] ['unfair Contracts' 'jurisdiction' 'non Competition Clause' 'collateral Arrangements' 'employment Termination' 'negative Covenants']

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 / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion to Strike Out for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court has jurisdiction under s 106 to deal with the share and unit purchase agreement and its non-competition clause' 'Whether the share and unit purchase agreement is a contract, arrangement, or collateral arrangement whereby a person performs work in an industry' 'Whether failure to adequately particularise the contract or arrangement defeats jurisdictional invocation']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant failed to particularise the contract or arrangement with sufficient detail in the summons, and the proceedings may be capable of embracing the SUP agreement as part of an arrangement, it is not appropriate at this interlocutory stage to determine jurisdictional arguments or strike out the proceedings. The question of jurisdiction must await detailed determination after evidence is heard at the substantive hearing.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notice of motion (to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction) dismissed; costs reserved; directions to file notice of motion for amendment given.

Orders

  • ["So much of the respondents' notice of motion filed 19 November 2004 which seeks to have the further amended summons dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, other than argument based on s 108B of the Act, is dismissed." 'The balance of the notice of motion is stood over with liberty to apply.' 'Costs are reserved.'...