Communications, Electrical, Electronic Etc Union of Aus, Ex parte- Re Laing

[1997] HCATrans 162

TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSCRIPT

Western AustraliaLevel 216 St Georges TcePerth WA 6000Phone [phone]Fax [phone] 

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TOOHEY J

P No 19 of 1997

LAING and ANOTHER

and

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL,
ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION,
POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES
UNION OF AUSTRALIA and ANOTHER

PERTH

10.03 AM, TUESDAY, 10 JUNE 1997

Continued from 14.5.97

HIS HONOUR:   Before I look to counsel I should note that the Court holds a certificate from the Deputy Registrar in these terms:

I have been informed by the Australian Government Solicitor, Solicitor for the respondent Commissioner in the above named matter, that the Commissioner does not wish to be represented at the hearing of this matter and will abide by any order, save as to costs, of this Court and, if remitted, the Federal Court of Australia.

Now, Mr Courtis, I look to you, do I?

MR COURTIS:   Yes.  If your Honour please, I hand up a minute of proposed directions and I can also indicate, your Honour, that I have sent copies of the minute to the other parties via their solicitors and counsel.  I understand that the State Attorney and the Federal Attorney do not propose to attend the hearing this morning.  They have no comment on the proposed orders, but I do understand that one of the parties may not wish to consent to them in this form, but my learned friend will address your Honour on that.

HIS HONOUR:   Let me just go through them with you, Mr Courtis.  Why would the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union be added as a third respondent?

MR COURTIS:   Well, that is the very point my learned friend raised with me this morning, and I understand that his clients wish to reserve their position.  It may well be better, I think, if my friend were to address you on the point.

HIS HONOUR:   Well, I suppose that comment applies to 4 as well, does it?

MR COURTIS:   Yes, that does, that is right.

HIS HONOUR:   I am not sure that it is desirable to simply say that the proceedings be remitted.  It is really a notice of motion which is to be remitted, is it not?

MR COURTIS:   Thank you.

HIS HONOUR:   It is the notice of motion dated 7 May.  Yes, thank you, Mr Courtis.  Mr Johnston, you have a problem, do you?

MR JOHNSTON:   Sir, it is only as a precautionary matter that we appear, that your Honour has already identified.  The position of the CFMEU is that we do not support joining us as respondents, and the same with Gary Wood at this stage.  We simply want to reserve our position and when the matter is remitted to the Federal Court to take instructions whether to continue to support the application by way of an intervention or perhaps more properly join ourselves as a party, and which side we would be as an applicant rather than as a respondent. 

So we think it is premature, even if the Court were able to, and we have some doubts about whether an order could be made at this stage binding on the Federal Court;  but my own point is discretionary, that we just simply do not wish an order to be made in those terms.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I can see the force of that, I think, Mr Johnston, thank you.  Mr - I am sorry.

MR D.S. ELLIS:   My client, Electricity Corporation, consents to orders in terms sought by Mr Courtis.  I must say my recollection of the status of the CFMEU and Mr Wood was that during the course of the hearing they had sought to be joined as parties and you had indicated that they would be.

HIS HONOUR:   I think if you look at the transcript you will see that it did not proceed or their status did not proceed beyond that of interveners.  There certainly was some discussion as to whether they might be joined or not but I have had a look at the transcript and it seems to me that to describe them as interveners is a more accurate description of their status hitherto.

MR ELLIS:   Certainly, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   I take it then you have no problem if paragraphs 3 and 4 were deleted.

MR ELLIS:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.  Mr Courtis, it does seem to me preferable that paragraphs 3 and 4 be excised at this stage.  It does not really affect your position.

MR COURTIS:   No, it does not.

HIS HONOUR:   Very well, there will be an order in these terms:

(1)The heading of the proceedings be amended to cite Commissioner Laing of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as first respondent.

(2)That Electricity Corporation be added as a second respondent to the proceedings.

(3)That the notice of motion dated 7 May 1997 be remitted to the Perth Registry of the Federal Court.

In other words, I have excised also the words "for further hearing".  It does seem appropriate that it go to the Perth Registry in any event.  I mean, it is a localised matter.  Very well, there will be an order in those terms.  If there is nothing else the court will adjourn.

AT 10.08 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
INDEFINITELY