Attorney-General (Qld) v Riordan

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.