Gerrard, Allan & Anor v Mayne Nickless Ltd [1997] FCA 1439

Gerrard, Allan & Anor v Mayne Nickless Ltd [1997] FCA 1439

The claims within the Court's original jurisdiction under s 127B(5) had ceased to have any legal or practical effect: the claims for priority or preference and restraint of new contracts were limited to vacancies arising within 12 months of termination, that period had expired, the damages claim had been abandoned, and any obligations under the interim order had to be performed at the latest by 3 February 1995. Because the application was moot and no practical justiciable federal issue remained, leave to amend to add new claims was refused and the respondent's motion to dismiss was granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 127 B(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 to Enforce Interim Orders Made Under Ss 127 a and 127 B Concerning Contracts for Services / Applicants' Motion for Leave to Amend Application and Statement of Claim; Respondent's Motion to Strike Out and Dismiss Application
Outcome
Applicants' motion refused; respondent's motion granted; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['review of Contracts for Services' 'independent Contractors' 'interim Orders' 'strike Out' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'mootness' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting']
['industrial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['review of Contracts for Services' 'independent Contractors' 'interim Orders' 'strike Out' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'mootness' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting']

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 Under S 127 B(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 to Enforce Interim Orders Made Under Ss 127 a and 127 B Concerning Contracts for Services / Applicants' Motion for Leave to Amend Application and Statement of Claim; Respondent's Motion to Strike Out and Dismiss Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their application and statement of claim to add claims based on breach of statutory duty and breach of contract.' 'Whether the application and statement of claim should be struck out or dismissed because the claims under the interim order had become spent or moot through lapse of time.' "Whether new State-law claims could be attached to the Court's accrued or cross-vested jurisdiction where no justiciable issue remained in the original jurisdiction." 'Whether the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under s 127B(5) retained any real practical significance after expiry of the relevant 12 month period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The claims within the Court's original jurisdiction under s 127B(5) had ceased to have any legal or practical effect: the claims for priority or preference and restraint of new contracts were limited to vacancies arising within 12 months of termination, that period had expired, the damages claim had been abandoned, and any obligations under the interim order had to be performed at the latest by 3 February 1995. Because the application was moot and no practical justiciable federal issue remained, leave to amend to add new claims was refused and the respondent's motion to dismiss was granted.

Court Disposition

Applicants' motion refused; respondent's motion granted; application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Applicants motion, notice of which is dated 18 September 1997 be refused.' "The Respondent's motion, notice of which is dated 18 September 1997 be granted." 'The application be dismissed.']