Altaranesi v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

The applicant, Altaranesi, sought to challenge decisions of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (the Commission) in the Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned the Commission's jurisdiction and the alleged errors of law and breaches of natural justice by a Commissioner and the Full Bench of the Commission.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether a privative clause in the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* (NSW) was effective to exclude the Court's power to grant prerogative relief in light of the High Court's decision in *Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales*. The Court also had to consider whether the Full Bench had invoked the wrong source of power, whether factual errors concerning the presence of an interpreter or the refusal to regard a misunderstanding as a reason for granting leave to appeal constituted jurisdictional error. Further issues involved whether the refusal to hold documents inadequate was *Wednesbury* unreasonable, whether there was bias, and whether the Commission had the power to revert to conciliation after arbitration commenced. The Court also considered the jurisdiction of the Full Bench to supervise a Commissioner and whether the applicant was entitled to a merit-based appeal without first establishing error of law. Finally, the applicability of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to the Commission and the admissibility of challenges to the accuracy of transcripts were in question.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the privative clause in s 179 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* was effective to prevent the grant of prerogative relief for errors of law that were not jurisdictional errors. The Court found that the alleged errors, including the invocation of the wrong source of power, factual errors, and the refusal to grant leave to appeal, did not amount to jurisdictional error. The Court also held that the Commission's actions were not *Wednesbury* unreasonable and that there was no evidence of bias. The Court further determined that the Commission had the power to revert to conciliation and that the Full Bench possessed inherent supervisory jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to a merit-based appeal without establishing error of law and that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules were not applicable to the Commission when constituted otherwise than as the Industrial Court.

The summons was dismissed with costs.