Mulcahy, Barry & Ors v Hydro-Electric Commission [1998] FCA 834

Mulcahy, Barry & Ors v Hydro-Electric Commission [1998] FCA 834

The Court rejected the applicants' construction because it would unrealistically make any Wages employee engaged for work not immediately connected with dam construction a permanent employee at the moment of engagement, even though the Hydro used the same engagement procedure across divisions, employees moved between divisions, any Wages employee was potentially a Construction Division worker, and there was actual work connection such as the Moonah workshop servicing Construction Division vehicles. The application was dismissed and all applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, on the usual basis rather than rateably.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Orders and Reasons for Judgment After Written Submissions Following Directions Given on 3 June 1998
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['wages Employees' 'permanent Employment' 'rbf Scheme' '1925 Act Entitlements' 'limitation' 'joint and Several Liability for Costs']
['employment Law' 'costs'] ['wages Employees' 'permanent Employment' 'rbf Scheme' '1925 Act Entitlements' 'limitation' 'joint and Several Liability for Costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Orders and Reasons for Judgment After Written Submissions Following Directions Given on 3 June 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the personal circumstances of certain Wages employees took them outside the findings in the reasons for judgment.' 'Whether employment duties not immediately connected with dam construction made the relevant Wages employees permanent employees.' 'Whether costs should be awarded against each applicant rateably or on the usual joint and several basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court rejected the applicants' construction because it would unrealistically make any Wages employee engaged for work not immediately connected with dam construction a permanent employee at the moment of engagement, even though the Hydro used the same engagement procedure across divisions, employees moved between divisions, any Wages employee was potentially a Construction Division worker, and there was actual work connection such as the Moonah workshop servicing Construction Division vehicles. The application was dismissed and all applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, on the usual basis rather than rateably.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'All applicants pay the costs of the respondent, including reserved costs.']