Kennett and Anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors and Myong Ho Pak v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors [2005] NSWIRComm 367

Kennett and Anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors and Myong Ho Pak v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors [2005] NSWIRComm 367

Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged errors concerned the exercise of the discretion to award interlocutory costs, did not raise questions of principle, did not satisfy the public interest test in s 188 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, and did not demonstrate appellable error. Marks J's orders were within the discretion conferred by s 181, and the transcript confirmed that his Honour directed his enquiries to what had occurred since the December 2004 conciliation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Interlocutory Costs Orders / Full Bench Determination of Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'public Interest Test' 'discretionary Costs Decision' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'case Management Directions']
['industrial Relations' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'public Interest Test' 'discretionary Costs Decision' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'case Management Directions']

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 Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Interlocutory Costs Orders / Full Bench Determination of Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 188(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether Marks J erred in exercising the discretion to order costs under s 181 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether Marks J wrongly took into account the conduct of the proceedings before the December 2004 conciliation.' 'Whether the finding of gross delay and the costs orders were supported by the material before Marks J.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged errors concerned the exercise of the discretion to award interlocutory costs, did not raise questions of principle, did not satisfy the public interest test in s 188 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, and did not demonstrate appellable error. Marks J's orders were within the discretion conferred by s 181, and the transcript confirmed that his Honour directed his enquiries to what had occurred since the December 2004 conciliation.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellants are ordered to bear the respondents' costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed."]