Martin v Sheldon Commercial Interiors [2001] NSWIRComm 265

Martin v Sheldon Commercial Interiors [2001] NSWIRComm 265

The applicant's proceedings, as framed, are consistent with the extended definitions under the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and cannot at this stage be characterised as an abuse of process. There is no basis to remove the second and third respondents or strike out the identified aspects of the applicant's claim. The application is dismissed with costs.

Parties
Applicant: John Martin; First Respondent: Sheldon Commercial Interiors; Second Respondent: Second Respondent (Mr Peter Law or Mrs Robyn Law); Third Respondent: Third Respondent (Mr Peter Law or Mrs Robyn Law)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion) in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Strike Out Application—interlocutory; Extempore Judgment
Outcome
Strike out application dismissed with costs to the applicant. Proceedings stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Strike Out Application, Joinder of Parties, Industrial Relations Act S 105, S 106, Abuse of Process
Industrial Law Unfair Contract Strike Out Application Joinder of Parties Industrial Relations Act S 105, S 106 Abuse of Process

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Martin

Applicant

Sheldon Commercial Interiors

First Respondent

Second Respondent (Mr Peter Law or Mrs Robyn Law)

Second Respondent

Third Respondent (Mr Peter Law or Mrs Robyn Law)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion) in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Strike Out Application—interlocutory; Extempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second and third respondents should be struck out as parties to unfair contract proceedings under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim as pleaded constitutes an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings as framed fall within the jurisdiction provided by s 106 and s 105 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's proceedings, as framed, are consistent with the extended definitions under the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and cannot at this stage be characterised as an abuse of process. There is no basis to remove the second and third respondents or strike out the identified aspects of the applicant's claim. The application is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Strike out application dismissed with costs to the applicant. Proceedings stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • The Court dismisses the respondents' motion to strike out the second and third respondents or part of the summons.
  • The respondents shall pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion heard today.