Australian Broadcasting Commission v Industrial Court of South Australia [1985] HCA 71

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Industrial Court of South Australia [1985] HCA 71

Extraction of an order incorporating the final judgment delivered on 29 September 1977 was not a "fresh step" under O. 60, r. 12(2), so leave under that rule was not required. However, because O. 44, r. 5 had not been complied with, a direction under O. 44, r. 6 was appropriate; good reason existed because related...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Motion for Direction to Draw Up Judgment/order / Application Before Wilson J After Final High Court Judgment Delivered on 29 September 1977
Outcome
Application allowed to the extent that the Registrar was directed to draw up the judgment; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['extraction of Judgment' 'fresh Step After Delay' 'direction to Registrar' 'costs Taxation' 'inconsistency Under S. 109 of the Constitution']
['civil Procedure' 'constitutional Law' 'industrial Law'] ['extraction of Judgment' 'fresh Step After Delay' 'direction to Registrar' 'costs Taxation' 'inconsistency Under S. 109 of the Constitution']

Source-derived case record

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

Motion for Direction to Draw Up Judgment/order / Application Before Wilson J After Final High Court Judgment Delivered on 29 September 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether extraction of an order incorporating a final judgment is a "fresh step" within O. 60, r. 12(2) of the High Court Rules.' 'Whether the Registrar should be directed under O. 44, r. 6 of the High Court Rules to draw up the judgment despite non-compliance with O. 44, r. 5.' 'Whether taxing costs after the lapse of time would require leave under O. 60, r. 12(2).']

Ratio Decidendi

Extraction of an order incorporating the final judgment delivered on 29 September 1977 was not a "fresh step" under O. 60, r. 12(2), so leave under that rule was not required. However, because O. 44, r. 5 had not been complied with, a direction under O. 44, r. 6 was appropriate; good reason existed because related litigation between the appellant and the second respondent remained pending, negotiations had occurred, costs had been a factor in those negotiations, and undue prejudice to the second respondent was unlikely.

Court Disposition

Application allowed to the extent that the Registrar was directed to draw up the judgment; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave is not required under O. 60, r. 12 in order to extract the judgment.' 'The Registrar is directed to draw up the judgment.' 'There will be no order as to the costs of this application.']