Taudevin v Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited and The Commonwealth (No. 2) [2002] NSWIRComm 6

Taudevin v Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited and The Commonwealth (No. 2) [2002] NSWIRComm 6

Neither respondent demonstrated that the Commission lacked jurisdiction at this stage; the applicant has an arguable case as to jurisdiction, and it is premature to dismiss the proceedings. The motions to strike out are accordingly dismissed, and conciliation must proceed first in accordance with s 109.

Parties
Applicant: Lansell Ronald Taudevin; First Respondent: Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited; Second Respondent: The Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Determination of Preliminary Motions to Strike Out Proceedings
Outcome
Respondents' strike-out motions dismissed; proceedings continue to conciliation
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Jurisdiction, Conciliation, Territorial Nexus, Crown Binding, Construction of Statutes
Industrial Relations Employment Law Unfair Contract Jurisdiction Conciliation Territorial Nexus Crown Binding Construction of Statutes

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 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lansell Ronald Taudevin

Applicant

Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited

First Respondent

The Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Determination of Preliminary Motions to Strike Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission has jurisdiction under s 106 to grant relief regarding contracts or arrangements between the applicant and the respondents
  2. 2 Whether the contracts or arrangements have sufficient connection with New South Wales
  3. 3 Whether preliminary jurisdictional issues should be determined before or after conciliation under s 109

Ratio Decidendi

Neither respondent demonstrated that the Commission lacked jurisdiction at this stage; the applicant has an arguable case as to jurisdiction, and it is premature to dismiss the proceedings. The motions to strike out are accordingly dismissed, and conciliation must proceed first in accordance with s 109.

Court Disposition

Respondents' strike-out motions dismissed; proceedings continue to conciliation

Orders

  • The first and second respondents' notices of motion are dismissed.
  • The first and second respondents shall pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the notices of motion.