Zirk-Sadowski v University of New South Wales (No 3) [2024] FCA 515

Zirk-Sadowski v University of New South Wales (No 3) [2024] FCA 515

The Applicant failed to identify jurisdictional error in any of the three Fair Work Commission decisions. Commissioner Yilmaz and the Full Bench identified the correct statutory provisions and tests, considered the relevant submissions and evidence, and exercised their statutory functions orthodoxly. The Applicant's many complaints either re-agitated matters already addressed by the Commission, were irrelevant to the judicial review application, lacked a proper factual or legal basis, or at most alleged errors within jurisdiction. The notices to admit did not justify admissions or summary judgment. The Amended Originating Application was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under S 39 B(1 A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) of Three Fair Work Commission Decisions / Final Judgment on Amended Originating Application
Outcome
The Amended Originating Application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'fair Work Commission Appeals' 'extension of Time Under S 366 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'confidentiality and Non Publication Orders Under S 594 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'open Justice']
['administrative Law' 'industrial Law'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'fair Work Commission Appeals' 'extension of Time Under S 366 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'confidentiality and Non Publication Orders Under S 594 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'open Justice']

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

Application for Judicial Review Under S 39 B(1 A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) of Three Fair Work Commission Decisions / Final Judgment on Amended Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Fair Work Commission decisions refusing confidentiality orders, refusing an extension of time under s 366(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and refusing permission to appeal were affected by jurisdictional error.' 'Whether the Fair Work Commission failed to consider or misapplied the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth), s 118 of the Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the General Data Protection Regulation, or other matters raised by the Applicant.' 'Whether the Fair Work Commission misconstrued, misunderstood or failed to apply the public interest test for permission to appeal.' "Whether the Applicant's notices to admit should be treated as admissions supporting relief or summary judgment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to identify jurisdictional error in any of the three Fair Work Commission decisions. Commissioner Yilmaz and the Full Bench identified the correct statutory provisions and tests, considered the relevant submissions and evidence, and exercised their statutory functions orthodoxly. The Applicant's many complaints either re-agitated matters already addressed by the Commission, were irrelevant to the judicial review application, lacked a proper factual or legal basis, or at most alleged errors within jurisdiction. The notices to admit did not justify admissions or summary judgment. The Amended Originating Application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

The Amended Originating Application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's Amended Originating Application dated 22 June 2023 be dismissed." 'The First Respondent, within 7 days of these orders, file written submissions as to costs not exceeding 5 pages.' 'The Applicant, within 14 days of these orders, file written submissions as to costs in reply not exceeding 5 pages.']