Downey v Trans Waste Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 11

Downey v Trans Waste Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 11

The appeal failed because s. 34(5), (6) and (7) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 Vict. exclusively vested primary jurisdiction to determine an application by a former employee for relief against a harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal in a relevant Conciliation and Arbitration Board. No Board was appointed for the appellant's occupation or trade, so there was no competent Board to entertain the application or refer it to the Commission. The Commission had no jurisdiction otherwise than through a valid reference by a competent Board.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to the High Court From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria Prohibiting Deputy President Marsh From Further Proceeding With the Appellant's Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction' 'industrial Dispute' 'conciliation and Arbitration Boards' 'industrial Relations Commission of Victoria' 'referral of Industrial Disputes' 'specific Statutory Powers Prevailing Over General Powers']
['industrial Relations' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction' 'industrial Dispute' 'conciliation and Arbitration Boards' 'industrial Relations Commission of Victoria' 'referral of Industrial Disputes' 'specific Statutory Powers Prevailing Over General Powers']

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

Appeal / Appeal to the High Court From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria Prohibiting Deputy President Marsh From Further Proceeding With the Appellant's Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Industrial Relations Commission of Victoria had jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's application alleging harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal when no Conciliation and Arbitration Board was appointed for his occupation or trade." 'Whether s. 34(5), (6) and (7) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 Vict. constituted an exhaustive code for primary jurisdiction over applications for relief against harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal.' 'Whether the dispute between a dismissed employee and former employer could be an industrial dispute under the amended definition of "industrial dispute".' 'Whether the matter could be referred to the Commission under s. 37, s. 44, s. 11 or s. 12A of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 Vict.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because s. 34(5), (6) and (7) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 Vict. exclusively vested primary jurisdiction to determine an application by a former employee for relief against a harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal in a relevant Conciliation and Arbitration Board. No Board was appointed for the appellant's occupation or trade, so there was no competent Board to entertain the application or refer it to the Commission. The Commission had no jurisdiction otherwise than through a valid reference by a competent Board.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']