Quickenden v O'Connor [1999] FCA 1423

Quickenden v O'Connor [1999] FCA 1423

The proceeding did not seek to enforce any right or duty conferred or created by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). It sought to enforce a duty imposed by law on the Commission not to act without authority lawfully conferred under the Constitution, and derivative duties on the Union and the University not to act on the impugned decision. Accordingly, the matter was not one arising under the Act, s 347 did not apply, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief Under S 75(v) of the Constitution, Remitted to the Federal Court / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Applicant's Motion
Outcome
The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.
Legal Topics
['statutory Disentitlement to Costs' 'matter Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'prerogative Relief' 'certiorari' 'prohibition' 'jurisdiction Remitted From the High Court']
['workplace Relations' 'costs' 'constitutional Law' 'administrative Law'] ['statutory Disentitlement to Costs' 'matter Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'prerogative Relief' 'certiorari' 'prohibition' 'jurisdiction Remitted From the High Court']

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 for Prerogative Relief Under S 75(v) of the Constitution, Remitted to the Federal Court / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Applicant's Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 347 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) prevented an order that the applicant pay the costs of the second and third respondents.' 'Whether the proceeding was in a matter arising under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding did not seek to enforce any right or duty conferred or created by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). It sought to enforce a duty imposed by law on the Commission not to act without authority lawfully conferred under the Constitution, and derivative duties on the Union and the University not to act on the impugned decision. Accordingly, the matter was not one arising under the Act, s 347 did not apply, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

Court Disposition

The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

Orders

  • ['The applicant pay the costs of the second and third respondents.']