WorkCover v Red Lea Chickens [2000] NSWIRComm 168

WorkCover v Red Lea Chickens [2000] NSWIRComm 168

The notice of motion was dismissed because s 12 of the Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967 sufficiently dealt with the situation: both parties appeared by counsel and were in a position to proceed. In any event, the Court considered that it had set down the time and place of the hearing consistently with s 4(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967, and that proceeding would not offend the public interest or deny the defendant a fair trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Permanent Stay
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; the matter was to proceed to hearing and determination.
Legal Topics
['notice of Motion' 'strike Out' 'permanent Stay' 'issue of Summons' 'rule 220 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996' 'supreme Court (summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967 S 12']
['practice and Procedure' 'industrial Relations' 'occupational Health and Safety'] ['notice of Motion' 'strike Out' 'permanent Stay' 'issue of Summons' 'rule 220 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996' 'supreme Court (summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967 S 12']

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

Prosecution Under S15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Permanent Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter should be struck out or permanently stayed because the summons was not issued by the Registrar in accordance with Rule 220 of the Rules of the Commission but was signed and issued by a clerical officer within the Registry.' 'Whether s 12 of the Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967 allowed the Court to proceed where both parties appeared by counsel.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because s 12 of the Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967 sufficiently dealt with the situation: both parties appeared by counsel and were in a position to proceed. In any event, the Court considered that it had set down the time and place of the hearing consistently with s 4(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967, and that proceeding would not offend the public interest or deny the defendant a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; the matter was to proceed to hearing and determination.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.']