Dempster v Comrie

Case [2000] FCA 253

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dempster v Comrie [2000] FCA 253

INDUSTRIAL LAW – jurisdiction to entertain claim under Part XA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – whether provisions apply to transfer of police officers in Victoria – whether state legislative power concerning transfers validly referred to Commonwealth – construction of state referring legislation

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether permanent stay available where expiry of employment term meant proceedings incapable of benefiting applicant

Commonwealth Powers (Industrial Relations) Act 1996: ss 1, 3, 4, 5
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act: s 51(xxxvii)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth): ss 298A, 298C, 298K, 298L, 298U, 490, 496
Employee Relations Act 1992 (Vic): s 9
Police Regulation Act 1958: ss 8, 8AA, 17, 70, 82

Mayne Nickless Limited v Transport Workers Union of Australia [1998] FCA 984, distinguished

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297, cited
La Roche v Cormack (1991) 33 FCR 414, referred to
Graham v Paterson (1950) 81 CLR 1, cited
Sande v Registrar, Supreme Court of Queensland (1996) 64 FCR 123, cited
Mullins v Treasurer of Surrey (1880) 5 QBD 170, cited

NIGEL DEMPSTER v M N (NEIL) COMRIE, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA (IN HIS CAPACITY AS EMPLOYER AS NOMINATED BY THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL), NOEL ASHBY AND THE STATE OF VICTORIA

V 596 OF 1999

MOORE, KIEFEL AND LEHANE JJ
15 MARCH 2000
SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 596 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NIGEL DEMPSTER
APPELLANT

AND:

M N (NEIL) COMRIE, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA (in his capacity as employer as nominated by the Governor in Council)
FIRST RESPONDENT

NOEL ASHBY
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE STATE OF VICTORIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MOORE, KIEFEL AND LEHANE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application to stay the appeal be dismissed.

2.   The appeal be 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

V 596 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NIGEL DEMPSTER
APPELLANT

AND:

M N (NEIL) COMRIE, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA (in his capacity as employer as nominated by the Governor in Council)
FIRST RESPONDENT

NOEL ASHBY
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE STATE OF VICTORIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MOORE, KIEFEL AND LEHANE JJ

DATE:

15 MARCH 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J:

  1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgments of Kiefel J and Lehane J in a draft form. I respectfully agree with the conclusions they have reached and their reasons. In particular, for the reasons given by Lehane J in paragraphs 24 to 32, s…

Continue reading Dempster v Comrie

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dempster v Comrie [2000] FCA 253
Case
[2000] FCA 253
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dempster v Comrie is a case that came before the High Court of Australia, with the applicant, Dempster, seeking to stay an appeal brought by Comrie. The dispute centred on the enforceability of a contract between the two parties and the appropriate forum for resolving the issues. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the appeal should be stayed and, if not, whether it should be dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given that the matter had already been decided by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Federal Court should exercise its discretion to stay the appeal under section 36 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The court was required to balance the principles of finality in litigation and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication of proceedings.

In its decision, the court held that the Federal Court did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the matter involved a question of law that was relevant to the administration of the law in multiple jurisdictions. The court found that the Federal Court had the power to grant a stay of the appeal under section 36, but that the discretion should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the circumstances of this case did not warrant a stay, as there was no significant risk of injustice or unfairness to either party. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to stay the appeal and also dismissed the appeal itself.

The High Court's decision in this case reaffirms the importance of finality in litigation and the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of proceedings. The court's reasoning highlights the need for a cautious approach when considering a stay of an appeal and the importance of balancing the interests of both parties in the dispute. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application to stay the appeal and to dismiss the appeal itself.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to stay the appeal be dismissed.

2. The appeal be dismissed.

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

MOORE, KIEFEL AND LEHANE JJ (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.