King v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW & Ors

[2006] HCATrans 112

[2006] HCATrans 112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S489 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

GREGORY JOHN KING

Applicant

and

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

First Respondent

CAKE IT AWAY PTY LTD

Second Respondent

CAKE IT AWAY (FRANCHISING) PTY LTD

Third Respondent

PAUL TARTAK

Fourth Respondent

MICHAEL TARTAK

Fifth Respondent

TONY TARTAK

Sixth Respondent

MARY TARTAK

Seventh Respondent

PAULINE TARTAK

Eighth Respondent

ST GEORGE BANK LTD

Ninth Respondent

ADVANCE LEASING LTD

Tenth Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 9 MARCH 2006, AT 9.11 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 8 September 2005.  By those orders, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s summons for leave to appeal against, first, orders of the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales refusing to grant an application to reopen an appeal which the applicant had instituted in the Commission, on the ground that the circumstances did not warrant it, and second, the judgment of the Full Bench of the Commission, made on 21 November 2003, dismissing the applicant’s appeal to that body from the orders of a single judge of the Commission.  He may also be understood as seeking special leave to appeal against the orders of the single judge but no appeal to this Court lies from a single judge of the Commission.

In this application, the applicant’s written submissions in support of the application for special leave do not advance any questions of law which would warrant the grant of special leave or raise any matters of principle so as to cast doubt on the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.12 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED