Crozier, in the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus against the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 1665

Crozier, in the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus against the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 1665

The proceeding arose under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), but was not instituted without reasonable cause, as Mr Crozier raised an arguable point of law; therefore, the application for costs is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Crozier; First Respondent: Vice President Ross; First Respondent: Senior Deputy President Acton; First Respondent: Commissioner Cribb; Second Respondent: Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd trading as Noble Park Storage & Transport
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus / Costs Determination After Dismissal
Outcome
costs application refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Termination of Employment, Prerogative Relief
Employment Law Administrative Law Costs Termination of Employment Prerogative 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Crozier

Applicant

Vice President Ross

First Respondent

Senior Deputy President Acton

First Respondent

Commissioner Cribb

First Respondent

Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd trading as Noble Park Storage & Transport

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus / Costs Determination After Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeding arose under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) for purposes of costs
  2. 2 Whether the proceeding was instituted without reasonable cause under s 347 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding arose under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), but was not instituted without reasonable cause, as Mr Crozier raised an arguable point of law; therefore, the application for costs is refused.

Court Disposition

costs application refused

Orders

  • The second respondent's application for costs be refused.