Coffey Engineering Pty Ltd v Inspector Patrick Legge [2001] NSWIRComm 99

Coffey Engineering Pty Ltd v Inspector Patrick Legge [2001] NSWIRComm 99

The appeal was competent and required leave, but leave was refused because it was an appeal from an interlocutory discretionary decision, no unusual circumstances or issues of principle were shown, and the appellant in substance sought only a re-exercise of the discretion at first instance; the double jeopardy contention was considered in light of the statutory cap in s 197A(5) and the six-day period involved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against a Decision Extending Time to Appeal / Full Bench Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'discretionary Decision']
['industrial Relations' 'appellate Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'discretionary Decision']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against a Decision Extending Time to Appeal / Full Bench Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal from the decision to extend time to appeal was competent under s 187 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether leave to appeal was required under s 188 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory discretionary decision extending time to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was competent and required leave, but leave was refused because it was an appeal from an interlocutory discretionary decision, no unusual circumstances or issues of principle were shown, and the appellant in substance sought only a re-exercise of the discretion at first instance; the double jeopardy contention was considered in light of the statutory cap in s 197A(5) and the six-day period involved.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The question of costs is reserved until the conclusion of the proceedings in Matter No IRC5379 of 2000.']