Chambers v James Cook University

[1995] IRCA 442

C A T C H W O R D S

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - respondent is plaintiff in County Court writ - 3 of 5 applicants are defendants in the County Court proceedings - proceedings in Industrial Relations Court issued first.
Practice and Procedure - Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Termination of Employment Cases - Proceedings to be set down and concluded as speedily as possible.

CASES:

McMahon v Gould [1982] 1 ACLC 98
Cameron’s Unit Services Pty Ltd v Whelpton and Assoc [1984] 4 FCR 428
Cargill v Shire of Lilydale [1984] 58 IR 332

Mahnken v Saunders Logging Pty Ltd [1994] 57 IR 237).

NGUYEN v KALLAN NOMINEES PTY LTD

No. VI-95/3542

AND

COOPER v KALLAN NOMINEES PTY LTD

No. VI-95/3513

AND

SIMONDS v KALLAN NOMINEES PTY LTD

No. VI-95/3514

AND

COOPER v KALLAN NOMINEES PTY LTD

No. VI-95/3515

AND

SIMONDS v KALLAN NOMINEES PTY LTD
No. VI-95/3516

Before:          Ryan JR
Place:            Melbourne
Date:              15 August 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY  VI-95/3542
  VI-95/3513
  VI-95/3514
  VI-95/3515
  VI-95/3516

B E T W E E N:                  LIN THI THUY NGUYEN and OTHERS
  Applicant

AND:KALLAN NOMINEES PTY LTD

Respondent

RYAN JR

MINUTES OF ORDER

15 AUGUST 1995

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Notices of Motion be dismissed.

1. Parties to provide general discovery within the terms of Order 15 Rule 5, six weeks from today’s date (15 August 1995).

1. The five matters be set down for hearing concurrently 20 to 24 November 1995.

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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY  Matter No VI-95/3542

B E T W E E N:                   LIN THI THUY NGUYEN and OTHERS
  Applicants

AND:               KALLAN NOMINEES PTY LTD
  Respondent

COURT:       RYAN JR

PLACE:        MELBOURNE

DATE:           15 AUGUST 1995

APPLICATIONS FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

I am not prepared to stay the proceedings in this Court.

I am guided by the principles set out in McMahon v Gould [1982] 1 ACLC 98 such principles being adopted by the Chief Justice of this Court while sitting in the Federal Court in Cameron’s Unit Services Pty Ltd v Whelpton and Associates [1984] 4 FCR 428 and also by me in Cargill v Shire of Lilydale [1984] 58 IR 332. (These principles were cited by the Court in their entirety during the hearing).

I have noted that the motion is that the Court order that proceedings VI-3513, VI-3514, VI-3515, VI-3516 and VI-3542 be stayed until the hearing and determination of proceeding number 95/04212 in the County Court of Victoria.  I have had the opportunity to read the statement of claim in the County Court action and I have noted the consent order of Dove J on 19 July 1995.

I also note that

(1)on its face, in terms of the County Court Statement of Claim, it is only in respect of one applicant, Susan Simonds, that a County Court claim is made relating to the period of employment set out in the applications before this Court

(2)the applicants in Matters VI-3513 and VI-3515 are not involved as defendants in the County Court proceedings

(3)proceedings in this Court were issued first.

The proceedings in this Court have proceeded in their normal course through conciliation.  Conciliation has been unsuccessful and it is the practice of this Court that matters be set down for hearing as soon as practicable.  I am fully aware that proceedings in this Court are likely to be heard before the end of this calendar year and that proceedings in the County Court are unlikely to proceed at least until some time next year and possibly late next year.

The whole structure of Division 3 Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 is predicated on the basis that applications of this type should go to hearing and be resolved as quickly as practicable (see Mahnken v Saunders Logging Pty Ltd [1994] 57 IR 237).

I am proposing to now, by way of directions hearing, deal with these applications and explore the possibility of setting them down for trial, the dates for such trial and any orders that might be sought of me in relation to such trial.

ORDERS:

1. The Notices of Motion be dismissed.

1. Parties to provide general discovery within the terms of Order 15 Rule 5, six weeks from today’s date (15 August 1995).

1. The five matters set down for hearing concurrently 20 to 24 November 1995.

I certify that this and the preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judicial Registrar Ryan.

Associate  :          

Date  :          4 September 1995

Appearances:

Counsel for the Applicant                :          M Klemmens

Counsel for the Respondent           :          S Jones

Date of Hearing  :          15 August 1995

Judgment  :          15 August 1995