Legal Research
Cases
Attorney-General (Qld) v Riordan

Attorney-General (Qld) v Riordan

Link copied

Case Copied 5 August 1997 49 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRENNAN CJ, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW AND KIRBY JJ

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND v THE HONOURABLE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RIORDAN & ORS (Matter No B 2 of 1996); RE SHOP DISTRIBUTIVE AND ALLIED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION; EX PARTE LAMSOON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ORS (Matter No A 38 of 1995); RE SHOP DISTRIBUTIVE AND ALLIED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION; EX PARTE ACTION FOOD BARNS & ORS (Matter No A 44 of 1995)
Industrial law

(1997) 192 CLR 1

5 August 1997
Industrial law

Industrial law—Australian Industrial Relations Commission—Jurisdiction—Industrial dispute—Doctrine of ambit—Paper disputes—Real and genuine dispute—Onus—Weight to be given to evaluation by Commission—Operation of s 101 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) and s 51(xxxv) of the Constitution—Prerogative relief. Constitution of the Commonwealth, ss 51(xxxv), 75(v). Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), ss 4(1), 101.

Orders

Order:
In appeal No B 2 of 1996:

1.Order that the notice of appeal be amended in accordance with the appellant's motion.

2. Order that the appeal be dismissed.

3. Costs reserved.

In application No A 38 of 1995:

1. Orders nisi for prohibition and certiorari, to the extent that they assert that the claims contained in the log of claims were fanciful and incapable of creating a genuine dispute, discharged.
2. Otherwise remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia.

In application No A 44 of 1995:

1. Orders nisi for prohibition and certiorari, to the extent that they assert that the claims contained in the log of claims were fanciful and incapable of creating a genuine dispute, discharged.
2. Otherwise remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia.

Decision

BRENNAN CJ AND McHUGH J.

In these cases, Kirby J has set out the history of the logs of claims which the respective industrial organisations of employees served on employers. His Honour has also set out the history of the proceedings in which the existence of an industrial dispute between the employers and the organisations of employees was in issue. Upon the non-acceptance of the respective logs of claims, notices of industrial disputes were given to the Industrial Relations Commission as required by s 99 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), now entitled the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the Act"). Thereafter, in each case, the Commission found the existence of an industrial dispute.

Proceedings were brought in this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under s 75(v) of the Constitution, for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission further to proceed on the basis of the dispute findings made. In one matter, the Attorney-General for Queensland applied for writs of prohibition and certiorari directed to the relevant members of the Commission, joining the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union ("the ALHMWU") and others as respondents. That matter was remitted for determination by the Industrial Relations Court. That Court dismissed the challenge. Leave[1] was granted to the Attorney-General to appeal to this Court from the decision of the Industrial Relations Court. In the other two cases,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Riordan and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1997] HCA 32
Decision Date: 5 August 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney-General for Queensland appealed to the High Court of Australia against decisions of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). The core of the dispute involved whether certain claims made by a union constituted a "real and genuine dispute" for the purposes of industrial relations legislation, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of the AIRC under section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution.

The High Court was required to determine whether the AIRC had jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute where the claims made by the union were alleged by the Attorney-General to be "fanciful" and incapable of creating a "real and genuine dispute" within the meaning of the *Industrial Relations Act 1988* (Cth). This involved considering the doctrine of "ambit" and the onus of proof in establishing the existence of such a dispute, as well as the weight to be given to the AIRC's own evaluation of the claims. The Court also considered the operation of section 101 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1988* (Cth) and section 75(v) of the Constitution in relation to prerogative relief.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal and discharging certain orders nisi, reasoned that the AIRC's assessment of whether a dispute was "real and genuine" was entitled to significant weight. The Court affirmed that the onus was on the party challenging the existence of the dispute to demonstrate its lack of genuineness. The claims, even if novel or unusual, were not so fanciful as to be incapable of forming the basis of a genuine industrial dispute. The Court found that the Federal Court had erred in its approach to the question of jurisdiction.

Consequently, in appeal No B 2 of 1996, the High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed. In applications No A 38 of 1995 and No A 44 of 1995, the orders nisi for prohibition and certiorari were discharged to the extent that they asserted the claims were fanciful, and the matters were remitted to the Federal Court of Australia. Costs were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

In appeal No B 2 of 1996:

1.Order that the notice of appeal be amended in accordance with the appellant's motion.

2. Order that the appeal be dismissed.

3. Costs reserved.

In application No A 38 of 1995:

1. Orders nisi for prohibition and certiorari, to the extent that they assert that the claims contained in the log of claims were fanciful and incapable of creating a genuine dispute, discharged.

2. Otherwise remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia.

In application No A 44 of 1995:

1. Orders nisi for prohibition and certiorari, to the extent that they assert that the claims contained in the log of claims were fanciful and incapable of creating a genuine dispute, discharged.

2. Otherwise remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.