CPSU, The Community and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 479

CPSU, The Community and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 479

The Full Court's order under s 28(1)(c) remitted only the issue of reason for further hearing and did not create a new trial. The remitted hearing was therefore a continuation of the original trial. Because the original trial was conducted on the basis that Telstra and Mr Cartwright knew the unions would argue prohibited reason from the terms of the e-mail, and Mr Cartwright's affidavit addressed that case, the rule in Browne v Dunn did not require cross-examination. There was no other reason to allow the unions to reopen their case, so they were not permitted to cross-examine Mr Cartwright.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Ruling in a Remitted Federal Court Proceeding Concerning an Application for Penalties Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / After Full Court Allowed Appeal, Set Aside the Trial Order and Remitted the Matter to the Primary Judge for Determination of the Issue of Prohibited Reason
Outcome
The trial will resume for determination of the remitted issue, but the unions will not be permitted to cross-examine Mr Cartwright.
Legal Topics
['remitted Proceedings' 'new Trial' 'further Hearing Under S 28(1)(c)' 'adducing Additional Evidence After Remittal' 'cross Examination' 'rule in Browne V Dunn' 'prohibited Reason Under Workplace Relations Legislation']
['practice and Procedure' 'appeals' 'employment and Industrial Law'] ['remitted Proceedings' 'new Trial' 'further Hearing Under S 28(1)(c)' 'adducing Additional Evidence After Remittal' 'cross Examination' 'rule in Browne V Dunn' 'prohibited Reason Under Workplace Relations Legislation']

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

Practice and Procedure Ruling in a Remitted Federal Court Proceeding Concerning an Application for Penalties Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / After Full Court Allowed Appeal, Set Aside the Trial Order and Remitted the Matter to the Primary Judge for Determination of the Issue of Prohibited Reason

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a proceeding remitted by the Full Court under s 28(1)(c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is to be conducted as a new trial or as a continuation of the original trial.' 'Whether the applicant unions should be permitted in the remitted proceeding to resile from their position at trial and cross-examine Mr Cartwright.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court's order under s 28(1)(c) remitted only the issue of reason for further hearing and did not create a new trial. The remitted hearing was therefore a continuation of the original trial. Because the original trial was conducted on the basis that Telstra and Mr Cartwright knew the unions would argue prohibited reason from the terms of the e-mail, and Mr Cartwright's affidavit addressed that case, the rule in Browne v Dunn did not require cross-examination. There was no other reason to allow the unions to reopen their case, so they were not permitted to cross-examine Mr Cartwright.

Court Disposition

The trial will resume for determination of the remitted issue, but the unions will not be permitted to cross-examine Mr Cartwright.

Orders

  • ['The trial will resume so the remitted issue may be dealt with.' 'The unions will not be permitted to cross-examine Mr Cartwright.']