Grenz Pty Limited & Anor v Jetcrete Australia Pty Limited [2003] NSWIRComm 333

Grenz Pty Limited & Anor v Jetcrete Australia Pty Limited [2003] NSWIRComm 333

The evidence established a sufficient connection between the contract and New South Wales; Mr Clements performed work under the contract in an industry in and of New South Wales, even after relocating to Western Australia. The respondent has not discharged the heavy onus to show lack of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss must therefore be refused.

Parties
First Applicant: Grenz Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Matthew Clements; Respondent: Jetcrete Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Respondent's motion dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs ordered in favour of the applicants.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Jurisdiction Under Section 106, Variation of Contract, Employment in New South Wales
Industrial Relations Unfair Contract Jurisdiction Under Section 106 Variation of Contract Employment in New South Wales

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grenz Pty Limited

First Applicant

Matthew Clements

Second Applicant

Jetcrete Australia Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was one under which work was performed in an industry in and of New South Wales
  2. 2 Whether the Court had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to make the orders sought

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established a sufficient connection between the contract and New South Wales; Mr Clements performed work under the contract in an industry in and of New South Wales, even after relocating to Western Australia. The respondent has not discharged the heavy onus to show lack of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss must therefore be refused.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs ordered in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • Respondent's motion dismissed.
  • Costs ordered in favour of the applicants.