Comcare v John Holland Rail Pty Ltd (No 6) [2011] FCA 782

Comcare v John Holland Rail Pty Ltd (No 6) [2011] FCA 782

The Court adjourned the proceeding because clause 16(3) expressly permits adjournment on the ground that Comcare considers an appropriate written undertaking is in force; the appropriateness of the undertaking is a matter for Comcare as the relevant specialist regulator, not for the Court to second guess, and no discretionary considerations were identified against granting the adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (1991) (cth) / Application by Comcare for Adjournment of Trial Pursuant to Clause 16(3) of Schedule 2 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 1991 (cth)
Outcome
Proceeding adjourned pursuant to clause 16(3) of Schedule 2 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 1991 (Cth); July 2011 hearing dates vacated; subpoenaed witnesses excused; costs of the day to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'written Undertaking' 'declarations of Contravention' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'settlement of Litigation']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'civil Penalties' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'written Undertaking' 'declarations of Contravention' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'settlement of Litigation']

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

Civil Penalty Proceeding Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (1991) (cth) / Application by Comcare for Adjournment of Trial Pursuant to Clause 16(3) of Schedule 2 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 1991 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceeding should be adjourned under clause 16(3) of Schedule 2 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 1991 (Cth) because Comcare considers that an appropriate written undertaking by the respondents is in force.' 'Whether the Court must form its own view that the undertaking in force is appropriate and was made on reasonable grounds before adjourning the proceeding under clause 16(3).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court adjourned the proceeding because clause 16(3) expressly permits adjournment on the ground that Comcare considers an appropriate written undertaking is in force; the appropriateness of the undertaking is a matter for Comcare as the relevant specialist regulator, not for the Court to second guess, and no discretionary considerations were identified against granting the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Proceeding adjourned pursuant to clause 16(3) of Schedule 2 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 1991 (Cth); July 2011 hearing dates vacated; subpoenaed witnesses excused; costs of the day to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to clause 16(3) of Schedule 2 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 1991 (Cth), the proceeding is adjourned to a mention hearing at 9:30 am on 30 April 2012.' 'The hearing dates of 4-20 July 2011 are vacated.' 'All witnesses under subpoena are excused.' 'Costs of today be costs in the cause.']