CITATION: Carey & Ors v Industrial Relations Commission & Ors [1999] NSWCA 189 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41065/98 HEARING DATE(S): 22/03/99 JUDGMENT DATE:
11 June 1999PARTIES :
Vision Publishing Pty Ltd - 2nd opponent on summons and applicant on motion
Luke Carey - 1st claimant on summons
Paul Lane - 2nd claimant on summons
PK Lane Holdings Pty Ltd - 3rd claimant on summons
The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session - 1st opponent to summonsJUDGMENT OF: Registrar Jupp
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Industrial Relations Commission LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : IRC100/97
IRC7215/97LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Cahill J, Hungerford J, Schmidt J
COUNSEL: Mr A Moses for 2nd opponent on summons and applicant on motion
Mr K G Bennett for 2nd & 3rd claimants on summons and opponents to the motionSOLICITORS: Baker & McKenzie - 2nd opponent on summons and applicant on motion
Lyons & Lyons - claimants on summonsCATCHWORDS: securty for costs DECISION: security for costs ordered as against the 2nd and 3rd claimants on the summons in the sum of $8,000 each - for full orders see paragraphs 25,26,27 and 28 of the judgment
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 41065/98
REGISTRAR JUPP
Friday 11 June 1999
Luke Carey & ors v The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session and anor
JUDGMENT
1. REGISTRAR: On 16 October 1998 a summons was filed in these proceedings seeking orders in the nature of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus in respect of proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The 1st opponent, The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session, has filed a submitting appearance. The 2nd opponent to the summons, Vision Publishing Pty Ltd, filed a motion on 4 February 1999 originally returnable on 22 February 1999 which challenged the summons as being without jurisdiction or in the alternative sought security for costs. By consent the challenges to the summons have been adjourned to be heard at the same time as the summons. An amended notice of motion was filed on 22 February 1999. This motion seeks security for costs from the 2nd and 3rd claimants, Paul Lane and P.K. Holdings Pty Limited, in a sum of $25,000. The motion was heard by me on 22 March 1999. Mr Moses appeared on behalf of the 2nd opponent, and Mr Bennett appeared for the 2nd and 3rd claimants. I was subsequently provided with written submissions.
2. The proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission were commenced in 1994. A further amended summons was filed on 27 February 1996. The applicants were Luke Carey, Paul Lane and PK Lane Holding Pty Limited (‘PK’). The respondent was Vision Publishing Pty Ltd (‘Vision’). The summons sought relief pursuant to section 275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 alleging harsh, unfair or unconscionable conduct in relation to an employment like contract or agreement. Mr Carey and Mr Lane had been employees of Vision Publishing as…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Carey v Industrial Relations Commission 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1999] NSWCA 189
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Carey v Industrial Relations Commission*, Registrar Jupp considered an application for security for costs brought by the respondent against the second and third claimants. The dispute concerned the respondent's claim that the claimants lacked the financial capacity to meet potential costs orders should their claim fail.
The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether to exercise discretion to order security for costs against the second and third claimants. This involved assessing the likelihood of the claimants being unable to pay the respondent's costs if the proceedings were unsuccessful, and considering the overall justice of the case.
Registrar Jupp reasoned that the claimants' financial position, as evidenced by the material before the court, indicated a real risk that they would be unable to satisfy a costs order. The Registrar applied the principles governing applications for security for costs, which require a demonstration that the applicant has a reasonably arguable case and that it is just to make the order. The Registrar found that these conditions were met.
Consequently, security for costs was ordered against the second and third claimants in the sum of $8,000 each.
The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether to exercise discretion to order security for costs against the second and third claimants. This involved assessing the likelihood of the claimants being unable to pay the respondent's costs if the proceedings were unsuccessful, and considering the overall justice of the case.
Registrar Jupp reasoned that the claimants' financial position, as evidenced by the material before the court, indicated a real risk that they would be unable to satisfy a costs order. The Registrar applied the principles governing applications for security for costs, which require a demonstration that the applicant has a reasonably arguable case and that it is just to make the order. The Registrar found that these conditions were met.
Consequently, security for costs was ordered against the second and third claimants in the sum of $8,000 each.
Orders
Orders of the court
security for costs ordered as against the 2nd and 3rd claimants on the summons in the sum of $8,000 each - for full orders see paragraphs 25,26,27 and 28 of the judgment
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.