Chalmers v Deakin University

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Complaint of unlawful termination heard by Judicial Registrar – Application to review decision of Judicial Registrar out of time – Extension of time refused by primary Judge – Whether primary Judge erred in refusing to exercise discretion to extend time.

Industrial Relations Court Rules 1988 O 52 rr 2, 3, 4, 5, 33

Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 Schedule 16, Item 67

Arnotts Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1989) 24 FCR 313, applied

Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, applied
Coyne v Ansett Transport Industries, IRCA, Full Court, 24 Sept 1996, unreported, applied

Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397, applied

Deighton v Telstra Corporation Ltd, Full Federal Court, 17 Oct 1997, unreported, referred
Hall v Nominal Defendant (1967-68) 117 CLR 423, applied

Hargreaves v National Safety Council of Australia (1997) 74 IR 19, applied

Harrington v Lowe (1997) 190 CLR 311, applied

Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84, referred

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cullen (1984) 3 FCR 344, referred

Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187, applied
Keller v QBE (Investments) Ltd, IRCA, Gray J, 5 June 1995, unreported, referred
Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632, applied

Sophron v Nominal Defendant (1956-57) 96 CLR 469, referred

CHALMERS v DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
No VG 492 of 1997

JUDGES:      RYAN, OLNEY and NORTH JJ

DATE:           23 SEPTEMBER 1998

PLACE:         MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 No.VG 492 of 1997

BETWEEN: 

ALAN CHALMERS
APPELLANT

AND: 

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

RYAN, OLNEY, AND NORTH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

#23 SEPTEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appellant be granted an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal.

  1. Leave to appeal be granted.

  1. The appeal be allowed.

  1. The decision appealed from be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the appellant be granted an extension of time within which to seek a review of the decision of Judicial Registrar Murphy.

  1. The appellant’s application for review be remitted for hearing by a single Judge.

  1. The appellant’s notice of motion be otherwise dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 NO. VG 492 of 1997

BETWEEN: 

ALAN CHALMERS
APPELLANT

AND: 

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

RYAN, OLNEY, AND NORTH JJ

DATE:

# 23 SEPTEMBER 1998

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. There is before the Court an application for leave to appeal from an order of Marshall J dismissing the appellant’s notice of motion dated 3 July 1997 seeking an extension of time within which to lodge a notice of motion to review an order of Murphy JR of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia made on 16 April 1997, dismissing the applicant’s application pursuant to s…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chalmers v Deakin University 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
[1998] FCA 1187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Chalmers, sought an extension of time to appeal a decision made by the respondent, Deakin University. The dispute arose from a decision made by Judicial Registrar Murphy regarding a review of the University's decision to terminate the appellant's employment. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to decide whether the appellant was entitled to an extension of time to appeal the decision and, if so, whether leave to appeal should be granted. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the decision of the Judicial Registrar should be reviewed and, if so, whether the review should be heard by a single judge.

The court found that the appellant was entitled to an extension of time to appeal the decision and granted leave to appeal. The court held that the Judicial Registrar's decision should be reviewed, and that the review should be heard by a single judge. The court set aside the decision appealed from and remitted the appellant's application for review for hearing by a single judge. The court dismissed the appellant's notice of motion in all other respects. The court's decision was based on the principles of procedural fairness and the need for a just and equitable outcome in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant be granted an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal.

2. Leave to appeal be granted.

3. The appeal be allowed.

4. The decision appealed from be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the appellant be granted an extension of time within which to seek a review of the decision of Judicial Registrar Murphy.

5. The appellant’s application for review be remitted for hearing by a single Judge.

6. The appellant’s notice of motion be otherwise dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.