Re Sutton; Ex parte Victoria
The application was premature because the proceedings sought to be prohibited were only interlocutory, should be allowed to run their course in the Industrial Relations Court including any appeal, and any constitutional questions should first be determined by that Court within its jurisdiction with the benefit of the factual context from the court below.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Prohibition / Underlying Proceedings at an Interlocutory Stage in the Industrial Relations Court
- Outcome
- Application refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['prohibition' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'constitutional Questions' 'jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Prohibition / Underlying Proceedings at an Interlocutory Stage in the Industrial Relations Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the High Court should prohibit proceedings that were at an interlocutory stage in the Industrial Relations Court.' 'Whether constitutional questions raised by the application should first be determined by the Industrial Relations Court within its jurisdiction.']
Ratio Decidendi
The application was premature because the proceedings sought to be prohibited were only interlocutory, should be allowed to run their course in the Industrial Relations Court including any appeal, and any constitutional questions should first be determined by that Court within its jurisdiction with the benefit of the factual context from the court below.
Court Disposition
Application refused.
Orders
- ['The application will be refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment