Darc Rasmussen v Eltrax Systems Pty Limited - [2005] NSWSC 1144

Reported Decision:
166 IR 237

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:
Darc Rasmussen v Eltrax Systems Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 1144

HEARING DATE(S): 21 October 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

11 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Newman AJ

DECISION:
Motion dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:
Jurisdiction-inherent power of Supreme Court-application to remove matter pending in Industrial Relations Commission to Supreme Court- breach of contract- unfair contract-Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987

LEGISLATION CITED:
Industrial Relations Act 1996
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1997
Supreme Court Act 1970

CASES CITED:
Bezera Pty Limited v Mezan Enterprises Pty Limited BC9800722 (unreported) 19 March 1998
Bruning v Kingmill (1998) 44 NSWIR 180
Idameneo (No 123) Pty Ltd v Koko Swe Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 384
Reich v Client Server Professionals of Australia Pty Limited (Administrator Appointed) [2000] 49 NSWLR 551
Sydney Water Corporation Limited v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (2004) 61 NSWLR 661
Winron Pty Ltd v The Shell Company of Australia Limited (1996) 60 IR 64
Wood v Boral Reources (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4980/92, 28 October 1993, unreported)

PARTIES:
Darc Rasmussen
Eltrax Systems Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20090/2005

COUNSEL:
Mr B. Hodgkinson SC with Mr G. Edwards (Plaintiff/Applicant)
Mr P. Newall (Defendant/Respondant)

SOLICITORS:
Carroll & O'Dea (Plaintiff/Applicant)
Gadens (Defendant/Respondant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

NEWMAN AJ

11 November 2005

20090/2005 DARC RASMUSSEN v ELTRAX SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By this Notice of Motion the plaintiff (applicant) seeks to remove proceedings brought pursuant to section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the Industrial Relations Commission into this court.

2 In the Industrial Relations Commission the plaintiff seeks relief against the present defendant in this court and four other parties. In this court the plaintiff has brought proceedings alleging breach of contract by the nominated defendant.

3 The proceedings in this court were commenced after those in the Industrial Relations Commission. Originally, in his action in the Industrial Relations Commission, the plaintiff sought relief pursuant to section 106 of the Act and also damages for breach of contract.

4 When the plaintiff commenced his action in the Industrial Relations Commission it was thought, pursuant to what had fallen from the full bench of that court in Reich v Client Server Professionals of Australia Pty Limited (Administrator Appointed) [2000] 49 NSWLR 551, that the Industrial Relations Commission had jurisdiction to hear both proceedings pursuant to s106 of the Act and matters involving breach of contract. However, the Court of Appeal in Sydney Water Corporation Limited v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (2004) 61 NSWLR 661 held that Reich was wrongly decided. It determined that the relief which s106 contemplates is relief flowing from a contract found unfair on the evidence and not merely in unfair conduct, which may or may not demonstrate the unfairness of the contract under review. It follows that the present plaintiff’s claim in the Industrial Relations Commission for damages…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Darc Rasmussen v Eltrax Systems Pty Limited 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: [2005] NSWSC 1144
Decision Date: 11 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Darc Rasmussen v Eltrax Systems Pty Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved the plaintiff, Darc Rasmussen, who sought the removal of a matter concerning a breach of contract and an alleged unfair contract from the Industrial Relations Commission to the Supreme Court. The defendant, Eltrax Systems Pty Limited, contested this application, arguing that the matter should remain within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the inherent power to transfer the matter to itself and whether the terms of the contract were indeed unfair.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it possessed the inherent power to transfer the matter from the Industrial Relations Commission to itself. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the contract between the parties contained terms that were considered unfair. These questions required the court to consider relevant legislation, including the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987, and established principles of contract law.

The court began by examining the inherent power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases to itself, noting that such power must be exercised judiciously to avoid undermining the efficiency and independence of tribunals. The court found that, while the Supreme Court did possess this inherent power, it should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the court concluded that the application did not meet the threshold for such exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the court held that the contract between the parties was not unfair, as the terms were not significantly disadvantageous to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to transfer the matter from the Industrial Relations Commission.

The final orders of the court were that the application to remove the matter from the Industrial Relations Commission to the Supreme Court be dismissed, and that the matter remain within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission. The court also ruled that the contract in question was not unfair, thereby upholding the terms agreed upon by the parties.

Orders