Dempster v Comrie [1999] FCA 1382

Dempster v Comrie [1999] FCA 1382

The single justiciable controversy concerned Mr Comrie's decision to transfer Mr Dempster and whether Mr Dempster had legal redress, including whether the Act provided a remedy. Because the Court had power to consider whether it had jurisdiction under the Act, the matter at least in part arose under the Act. Section 347(1) therefore applied, and as Mr Comrie did not argue that the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, the application for costs was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Workplace Relations Proceeding Including Application for Interlocutory Relief Under S298 U of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) and Accrued Jurisdiction Claims / Determination of Respondent's Application for Costs After Substantive Application Dismissed
Outcome
Respondent's application for costs dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Part Xa' 'section 347 Costs Restriction' 'matter Arising Under the Act' 'accrued and Associated Jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Relief']
['workplace Relations' 'costs' 'federal Jurisdiction'] ['workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Part Xa' 'section 347 Costs Restriction' 'matter Arising Under the Act' 'accrued and Associated Jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Relief']

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

Workplace Relations Proceeding Including Application for Interlocutory Relief Under S298 U of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) and Accrued Jurisdiction Claims / Determination of Respondent's Application for Costs After Substantive Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s347(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) prevented a costs order against the applicant.' 'Whether the proceeding was a matter arising under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) despite the Court having found no jurisdiction to entertain the Part XA claim.' 'Whether Autistic Association of New South Wales v Dodson was distinguishable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The single justiciable controversy concerned Mr Comrie's decision to transfer Mr Dempster and whether Mr Dempster had legal redress, including whether the Act provided a remedy. Because the Court had power to consider whether it had jurisdiction under the Act, the matter at least in part arose under the Act. Section 347(1) therefore applied, and as Mr Comrie did not argue that the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, the application for costs was refused.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for costs dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for costs is dismissed." 'There be no order as to costs.']