Edwards v Kingsmede Pty Ltd and anor [2004] NSWIRComm 82

Edwards v Kingsmede Pty Ltd and anor [2004] NSWIRComm 82

The summons was confined to the lease agreement. The lease was relevantly indistinguishable from the lease considered in the Mitchforce litigation and did not contain a positive requirement that work be actually undertaken so that the carrying out of work in an industry could be characterised as a purpose of the agreement. It therefore did not fall within the statutory definition of a contract for the purposes of s 105 so as to attract jurisdiction under s 106, and the summons was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondents' Strike Out Application
Outcome
Summons dismissed; costs reserved; liberty to apply with respect to costs.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'lease Agreement' 'jurisdiction Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'interlocutory Strike Out Application']
['industrial Relations' 'contract Law' 'commercial Leasing'] ['unfair Contract' 'lease Agreement' 'jurisdiction Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'interlocutory Strike Out Application']

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 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment on Respondents' Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's commercial lease was a contract whereby a person performs work in any industry for the purposes of s 106(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996." "Whether the summons should be struck out at an interlocutory stage on the basis that the lease did not attract the Commission's jurisdiction under s 106."]

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was confined to the lease agreement. The lease was relevantly indistinguishable from the lease considered in the Mitchforce litigation and did not contain a positive requirement that work be actually undertaken so that the carrying out of work in an industry could be characterised as a purpose of the agreement. It therefore did not fall within the statutory definition of a contract for the purposes of s 105 so as to attract jurisdiction under s 106, and the summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; costs reserved; liberty to apply with respect to costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' 'Costs are reserved.' 'Liberty to apply with respect to costs.']