Industrial Relations Law - Compensation awarded by Industrial Relations Court for termination of employment - Subsequent action for damages in Magistrates' Court - Whether proceedings should be stayed - Whether unreasonable not to raise causes of action in Industrial Relations Court - Port of Melbourne Authority v. Anshun Pty. Ltd. (1981) 147 C.L.R. 589 - Industrial Relations Act1988 (Cth.) ss.170DE, 170EA, 170ED, 170EE - Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (Vic.) s.109.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellants
Mr. A.G. Uren Q.C. and Mr. B. Lacy
Mackay Taylor
For the Respondent
Dr. C. Jessup Q.C. and Mr. P. Burchardt
Maddens
ORMISTON, J. A.:
The question, shortly stated, arising out of the facts set out in the judgment of Kenny, J.A., is whether the respondent was properly precluded from suing the appellants in the Magistrates' Court by reason of the principles stated in Port of Melbourne Authority v. Anshun Pty. Ltd. (1981) 147 C.L.R. 589. The issue which the parties said arose before the magistrate and the primary judge was whether the subject matter of the later proceeding in the Magistrates' Court was "so relevant to the subject matter" of the action heard by a judicial registrar of the former Industrial Relations Court that "it would have been unreasonable not to rely on it": at 602. The double negative is here significant because the question is not whether it would have been reasonable to take the course of relying on a particular defence or cause of action in the first proceeding, for more often than not it was then possible to rely upon the proposed defence or cause of action. The issue is whether it was unreasonable to defer reliance upon the defence or cause of action, so, if it cannot be shown to have been unreasonable not to have relied earlier on the defence or cause of action, then the principle stated by the majority in Anshun's Case will not shut out a party's later reliance on the defence or cause of action, unless some other principle of estoppel or the law can be called in aid. Only if deferring reliance can be shown to be unreasonable, will the party be shut out. Frequently there is no clear answer as to what was possible and reasonable in the earlier proceedings; sometimes it will have been technically possible for the party to have relied on a particular defence or set up a particular claim, but nevertheless it may not have been demonstrated that it was unreasonable in all the circumstances not to have relied on that defence or not to have set up the claim. The answer depends not so much on legalities as practicalities.
In the…
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.
Continue reading Gibbs v Kinna
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gibbs v Kinna [1998] VSCA 52
Case
[1998] VSCA 52
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Gibbs brought an action against Kinna for damages arising from the termination of his employment. The proceedings were initially heard by the Industrial Relations Court, which awarded Gibbs compensation. Subsequently, Gibbs filed an action in the Magistrates' Court seeking further damages. Kinna applied for the proceedings to be stayed, arguing that Gibbs unreasonably failed to raise his causes of action in the Industrial Relations Court, and that the Anshun doctrine mandated the stay of the proceedings. The Magistrates' Court had to determine whether the Anshun doctrine applied, and if so, whether Gibbs' failure to raise his claims in the Industrial Relations Court was unreasonable.
The court considered whether the Anshun doctrine applied to prevent Gibbs from pursuing his claims in the Magistrates' Court. The doctrine, derived from Port of Melbourne Authority v. Anshun Pty. Ltd., prevents a party from pursuing a cause of action in a subsequent proceeding if they unreasonably failed to raise it in an earlier proceeding. The court examined whether the Industrial Relations Court had the jurisdiction to hear Gibbs' claims for damages and whether it was unreasonable for Gibbs not to have raised those claims in that forum. The court also assessed the statutory provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 to determine the appropriate course of action.
The court found that the Anshun doctrine did apply and that it was unreasonable for Gibbs not to have raised his claims in the Industrial Relations Court. The Industrial Relations Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear Gibbs' claims, and there were no impediments to him doing so. The court concluded that Gibbs' failure to raise his claims in the Industrial Relations Court was unreasonable, and therefore, the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court should be stayed.
The court ordered that the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court be stayed, in line with the Anshun doctrine, due to Gibbs' unreasonable failure to raise his claims in the Industrial Relations Court. This decision underscores the importance of pursuing all available remedies in the appropriate forum to avoid the application of the doctrine, which can result in the dismissal of subsequent proceedings.