Powers of Industrial Relations Court of Australia - power to award costs - effect of Court as court of law and equity - whether proceedings instituted without reasonable cause.
Knight v F.P. Special Assets Ltd(1992) 174 CLR 178 Da Sousa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs(1993) 114 ALR 708 Bourke v Mapstone(1984) 55 ALR 311 Brophy v Mapstone(1984) 3 FCR 227 Queensland Fish Board v Bunney; Ex parte Queensland Fish Board (1979) QdR 301 Crowe v Bennett; ex parte Crowe (1992) 59 A Crim R 416 Scarel Pty Ltd v City Loan and Credit Corporation Pty Ltd (1988) 17 FCR 344 at 349 Elna Australia Pty Ltd v International Computers (Australia) Pty Ltd(1987) 14 FCR 461 Marshall v Watson(1972) 124 CLR 640 Kanan v Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union(1992) 43 IR 257
No. NI 226 of 1994
CHARLIE ANTHONY CANCERI v PHILIP JOHN TAYLOR
MOORE J
SYDNEY
11 AUGUST 1994
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS )
)
COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NI 226 of 1994 )
BETWEEN:CHARLIE ANTHONY CANCERI
Applicant
AND:PHILIP JOHN TAYLOR
Respondent
JUDGE: Moore J
PLACE: Sydney
DATE: 11 August 1994
ORDER OF THE COURT
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application by the respondent for an order for the payment of costs be dismissed.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS )
)
COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NI 226 of 1994 )
BETWEEN:CHARLIE ANTHONY CANCERI
Applicant
AND:PHILIP JOHN TAYLOR
Respondent
JUDGE: Moore J
PLACE: Sydney
DATE: 11 August 1994
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
An application was made by Mr Charlie Canceri ("the applicant") under s170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act") seeking both an order declaring that the termination of his employment contravened Division 3 of PtVIA of the Act and compensation.
That application has been discontinued and the respondent applies for an order for costs. That latter application is resisted on the basis that the Industrial Relations Court of Australia ("the Court") has no power to award costs at all or, in the alternative, the Court is precluded by s347 from ordering the applicant to pay the respondent's costs in these proceedings. Whether the Court has power to award costs at all is not, as far as I am aware, the subject of any decision of the Court since it was established in March 1994.
When established the Court assumed the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia in relation to matters arising under the Act. The provisions constituting the Court and investing it with many of its powers are found in PtXIV of the…
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.
Continue reading Canceri v Taylor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Charlie Anthony Canceri v Philip John Taylor [1994] IRCA 12
Case
[1994] IRCA 12
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an application by Charlie Canceri against Philip John Taylor, where Canceri sought a declaration that his termination of employment contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) and compensation. The application was subsequently discontinued, and Taylor applied for an order for the payment of costs, which Canceri resisted. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Industrial Relations Court of Australia had the power to award costs, and if so, whether it could do so in this particular case.
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) and found that, while the Act did not expressly confer a general power to award costs, it did imply such a power through various sections and rules. The Court held that the combined effect of ss 361, 466, and other provisions which assume the existence of a power to award costs, implied a power to award costs. However, the exercise of this power is limited by s 347, which states that a party to a proceeding in a matter arising under the Act shall not be ordered to pay costs incurred by any other party unless the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause.
In this case, the Court found that the proceedings were not instituted without reasonable cause, as it was arguable that Canceri was an employee. Therefore, the Court was precluded by s 347 from making any order as to costs. The application for an order for the payment of costs was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.