CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MARITIME, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
v
AUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER & ANOR
[2018] HCASL 380 B44/2018
This application for special leave to appeal raises no question of principle of general importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. An appeal from the decision of the majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Tracey and Logan JJ) would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The application should be dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.
M.M. Gordon 5 December 2018
J.J. Edelman
Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2018] HCASL 380
Case
[2018] HCASL 380
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union against the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and another party was heard in the High Court of Australia. The union, as the appellant, sought special leave to appeal against a decision of the majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The primary dispute centred on the jurisdiction and the interpretation of certain provisions of Australian labour law. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Australian Building and Construction Commission Act 2012 (Cth) and whether the Full Court's decision was legally sound and correctly applied the law in the circumstances of this case.
The court considered the application for special leave to appeal and examined whether there were questions of principle of general importance that warranted the grant of special leave. The High Court concluded that the appeal did not raise any such questions and that there were insufficient prospects of success for an appeal against the Full Court's decision. The court found that the Full Court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions was consistent with the legal principles established in previous cases and there was no compelling reason to believe that the appeal would be successful. Consequently, the High Court decided that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed.
Given the findings, the High Court directed the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. This decision underscores the High Court's role in filtering cases that merit its attention and ensuring that its resources are focused on matters of significant legal importance. The dismissal with costs also serves as a reminder of the consequences for parties who pursue appeals without a reasonable basis for success.