Alto Artarmon Pty Ltd and anor v BMW Australia Limited [2007] NSWIRComm 172

Alto Artarmon Pty Ltd and anor v BMW Australia Limited [2007] NSWIRComm 172

The interlocutory application was appropriate for determination because the applicants relied only on the written dealer agreements and written variations, all of which were before the Court, and the evidence could be taken at its highest for the applicants. Properly characterised, the dealer agreements created motor vehicle distributorships under which the applicants conducted their own businesses in their own names, on their own account and at their own risk. Although the agreements contemplated and required that work be done by directors, employees or others so that the applicants could meet their obligations, that work was performed under employment or other arrangements with the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning Alleged Unfair Contracts / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondent's Motion to Strike Out the Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction and Power
Outcome
Respondent's motion upheld; amended summons struck out; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contracts' 'industrial Relations Act 1996 S 106' 'motor Vehicle Dealer Agreements' 'jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Strike Out Application' 'franchise and Distributorship Agreements']
['industrial Law' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Contracts' 'industrial Relations Act 1996 S 106' 'motor Vehicle Dealer Agreements' 'jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Strike Out Application' 'franchise and Distributorship Agreements']

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 Concerning Alleged Unfair Contracts / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondent's Motion to Strike Out the Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction and Power

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the BMW dealer agreements were contracts whereby a person performs work in any industry within s 106(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' "Whether the Court had jurisdiction to deal with the applicants' s 106 proceedings." "Whether the relief sought by the applicants was within the Court's power under s 106 because it was directed to arrangements whereby work was performed in an industry." 'Whether the interlocutory strike out application could be determined at the present stage of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application was appropriate for determination because the applicants relied only on the written dealer agreements and written variations, all of which were before the Court, and the evidence could be taken at its highest for the applicants. Properly characterised, the dealer agreements created motor vehicle distributorships under which the applicants conducted their own businesses in their own names, on their own account and at their own risk. Although the agreements contemplated and required that work be done by directors, employees or others so that the applicants could meet their obligations, that work was performed under employment or other arrangements with the...

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion upheld; amended summons struck out; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons is struck out.' 'Costs are reserved.' 'Liberty to apply with respect to costs which should be exercised within one month of this date.']