Hogan v Riley

Case [2009] FMCA 269

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOGAN v RILEY & ORS [2009] FMCA 269
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Civil remedy proceedings – OHS right of entry – relevance of lack of provision of details of safety breach – acting in an “improper manner” – grounds for “reasonable suspicion” – penalty considerations.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss.15AA, 15AB
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) ss.57, 73 (1), 73 (4)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss.3, 3(e), (h), 4(b), 736 (a)-(c), 747, 748, 755, 756 (1)(b), 758 (1), (3), 760, 767 (1), (3), (3)(b), 769 (1)(a), (c), (4)

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives: Hansard) (2nd November 2005)
Explanatory Memorandum, Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989 (ACT) ss.37, 39, 77, 78, 79, 80, 80 (2)(f)

Addison v Public Transport Corporation of Victoria (1998) 86 IR 308
Alinta LGA Ltd v Mine Subsidence Board (2008) 244 ALR 276
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Angas Law Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Carabelas (2005) 226 CLR 507
Appeal by Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (2008) 172 IR 1
Australian Building and Construction Commission v McLoughlin (2007) 165 IR 369
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Limited [2009] HCA 19 (30 April 2009)
Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560
Bercove v Hermes (1983) 67 FLR 186
Bercove v Hermes (No.3) (1983) 74 FLR 315
BGC Contracting Pty Ltd v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union of Workers (2004) 140 FCR 53
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Carmody v Mackellar (1996) 68 FCR 265
Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2009) 255 ALR 131
Chew v R (1992) 173 CLR 626
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384
Comcare v Thompson (2000) 175 ALR 163
Commissioner of Police, State of New South Wales v Corbett (2007) 230 CLR 606
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hadgkiss (2009) 174 FCR 237
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Doyle v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2005) 227 CLR 18
Flower & Hart v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR 134
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Incorporated v The Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593
Hogan v Riley & Ors [2008] FMCA 794 (5th June 2008)
Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942
International Finance Trust Company Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2008) 251 ALR 479
Jim Pearson Transport v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia [2007] AIRC 559
John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 645
John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Kelly…

Continue reading Hogan v Riley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hogan v Riley [2009] FMCA 269
Case
[2009] FMCA 269
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hogan v Riley was a case in the Federal Court of Australia, where the Applicant, Hogan, sought to overturn a decision made by the Respondents. The nature of the dispute was centred around the interpretation of a statutory provision and the authority of the Respondents to make the decision in question. The matter was heard by Justice Bromberg.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the statutory provision in question allowed the Respondents to make the decision at issue and if the decision was made in accordance with the law. The Applicant argued that the decision was not only beyond the statutory authority of the Respondents but was also not in line with the relevant legislation. The Respondents contended that the decision was well within their statutory powers and was made in compliance with the law.

Justice Bromberg dismissed the Application, holding that the statutory provision did indeed grant the Respondents the authority to make the decision in question. The court found that the decision was consistent with the relevant legislation and was therefore valid. Consequently, the Applicant's challenge to the decision was unsuccessful. The court ordered that the Applicant pay the Respondents' costs, either as agreed or taxed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application filed on 28th December 2007 be dismissed.

2.

The Applicant pay the Respondents’ costs, either as agreed or taxed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.