ASPLIN and ST BARBARA MINES LTD [1997] IRCA 79

ASPLIN and ST BARBARA MINES LTD [1997] IRCA 79

The proceeding was commenced in Perth and Perth was the proper place, but the Court had power under section 478 and Order 30 rule 6 to direct that part of the trial be heard elsewhere. Although delay, fragmentation and the first applicant's medical condition were weighty factors against the respondent's application, the balance favoured hearing the Meekatharra witnesses in Meekatharra because the respondent would otherwise incur substantial and practically unrecoverable witness costs and disruption in a generally no-costs jurisdiction, while the first applicant's prejudice from delay could be partly ameliorated by compensation if reinstatement were ordered and by conditions requiring the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding: First Applicant's Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Former Industrial Relations Act, Now Called the Workplace Relations Act 1996; Respondent's Application Under Section 478 for Part of the Trial to Be Heard in Meekatharra / Interlocutory Application for Change of Venue During Hearing
Outcome
Respondent's application for a change in venue allowed on conditions to be contained in further orders of the Court.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'place of Trial' 'unlawful Termination Proceeding' 'court Discretion' 'no Costs Jurisdiction']
['industrial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['change of Venue' 'place of Trial' 'unlawful Termination Proceeding' 'court Discretion' 'no Costs Jurisdiction']

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

Industrial Law Proceeding: First Applicant's Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Former Industrial Relations Act, Now Called the Workplace Relations Act 1996; Respondent's Application Under Section 478 for Part of the Trial to Be Heard in Meekatharra / Interlocutory Application for Change of Venue During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should direct that part of the proceeding be conducted at Meekatharra rather than Perth.' "How the Court should balance witness convenience and cost, delay, fragmentation of the hearing, the first applicant's medical condition, and efficient administration of the Court." 'Whether any change of venue should be subject to conditions ameliorating prejudice to the first applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was commenced in Perth and Perth was the proper place, but the Court had power under section 478 and Order 30 rule 6 to direct that part of the trial be heard elsewhere. Although delay, fragmentation and the first applicant's medical condition were weighty factors against the respondent's application, the balance favoured hearing the Meekatharra witnesses in Meekatharra because the respondent would otherwise incur substantial and practically unrecoverable witness costs and disruption in a generally no-costs jurisdiction, while the first applicant's prejudice from delay could be partly ameliorated by compensation if reinstatement were ordered and by conditions requiring the...

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for a change in venue allowed on conditions to be contained in further orders of the Court.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for a change in the venue of the trial to enable part of the trial to be heard in Meekatharra be allowed on conditions to be contained in further orders of the Court." 'There be liberty to apply.']