Hitchcock v Warner Bros Movie World

Matthew Hitchcock, an applicant, brought an application against Warner Bros Movie World, the respondent, to the Industrial Relations Court of Australia, challenging the termination of his employment as a casual performer. The applicant contended that the termination contravened the provisions of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. The respondent argued that the application was incompetent as Hitchcock was a casual employee and not subject to the relevant provisions of the Act. The central legal issue in this case was whether the termination of Hitchcock's employment constituted a "termination of employment" under the Industrial Relations Act 1988, and if the Industrial Relations Court of Australia had the jurisdiction to review the exercise of power by a Judicial Registrar. The court found that the Judicial Registrar had not exercised a power that was amenable to review under section 377 of the Act, as it did not involve a final determination of the matter being dealt with by the Judicial Registrar. The court held that the application for review was incompetent, and therefore dismissed the application. The court reserved the question of costs of the application for review.