Conquo v Jackson [2009] FCA 634

Conquo v Jackson [2009] FCA 634

The proceeding was competent because Division 3 of O 48 contains no express or implied requirement that all proceedings invoking ss 163, 164 or 164A of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) be commenced by rule to show cause. Its purpose is to provide a means to obtain a rule to show cause where needed to satisfy the financial assistance precondition in s 324, and the historical existence of repealed mandatory provisions did not justify importing such a requirement into the current rules.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Invoking Jurisdiction Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Schedule 1 Ss 163, 164, 164 a and 322 and Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) S 39 B(1 A)(c) / Determination of Respondents' Objection to the Competency of the Proceeding
Outcome
The respondents' objection to the competency of the proceeding was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['commencement of Proceedings' 'rule to Show Cause' 'financial Assistance' 'registered Organisations']
['practice and Procedure' 'industrial Relations' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['commencement of Proceedings' 'rule to Show Cause' 'financial Assistance' 'registered Organisations']

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

Proceeding Invoking Jurisdiction Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Schedule 1 Ss 163, 164, 164 a and 322 and Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) S 39 B(1 A)(c) / Determination of Respondents' Objection to the Competency of the Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a proceeding invoking ss 163, 164 and 164A of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) had to be commenced by rule to show cause under Division 3 of O 48 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether such a requirement should be implied despite the absence of express terms in Division 3 of O 48.' "Whether the consequences for financial assistance under s 324 of Schedule 1 supported the respondents' construction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was competent because Division 3 of O 48 contains no express or implied requirement that all proceedings invoking ss 163, 164 or 164A of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) be commenced by rule to show cause. Its purpose is to provide a means to obtain a rule to show cause where needed to satisfy the financial assistance precondition in s 324, and the historical existence of repealed mandatory provisions did not justify importing such a requirement into the current rules.

Court Disposition

The respondents' objection to the competency of the proceeding was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' objection to the competency of the proceeding be dismissed."]