Peter James McKay Watson v Royal Selangor (Aust) Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 296

Peter James McKay Watson v Royal Selangor (Aust) Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 296

The applicant was not barred by S170CD because commission payments calculated on sales were not relevant wages; his S170EA application was therefore within jurisdiction. However, the alleged settlement agreement was a separate contractual claim, disputed by the respondent, and did not arise out of the same substratum of facts as the termination application, so it was not convenient or appropriate to determine it in accrued jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Notices of Motion Filed by the Applicant and Respondent After Conciliation
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion dismissed; respondent's notice of motion dismissed except for application number 5(b); S170EA application to proceed to directions and not be referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Legal Topics
['relevant Wages Under S170 Cd' 'commission Payments' 'jurisdiction Under S170 Ea' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'alleged Settlement Agreement From Conciliation' 'referral to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['relevant Wages Under S170 Cd' 'commission Payments' 'jurisdiction Under S170 Ea' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'alleged Settlement Agreement From Conciliation' 'referral to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission']

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 Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Notices of Motion Filed by the Applicant and Respondent After Conciliation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was precluded by S170CD from bringing the S170EA application because his relevant wages exceeded the prescribed amount.' 'Whether commission calculated by reference to sales formed part of relevant wages for S170CD.' 'Whether the court should exercise accrued or associated jurisdiction under S430 to enforce the alleged settlement agreement reached during conciliation.' 'Whether the application should be referred again to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not barred by S170CD because commission payments calculated on sales were not relevant wages; his S170EA application was therefore within jurisdiction. However, the alleged settlement agreement was a separate contractual claim, disputed by the respondent, and did not arise out of the same substratum of facts as the termination application, so it was not convenient or appropriate to determine it in accrued jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion dismissed; respondent's notice of motion dismissed except for application number 5(b); S170EA application to proceed to directions and not be referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

Orders

  • ["That the applicant's notice of motion filed 22 May 1995 is dismissed." "That the respondent's notice of motion filed 26 May 1995 is dimissed in all respects except for application number 5(b) therein." 'That the application pursuant to S170EA be placed in the list of cases awaiting directions.' 'That this is not a...