Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales

Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd sought to prevent the Industrial Court of New South Wales from hearing a matter concerning its standing to apply for relief under section 108 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* (NSW). Meriton argued that a prior decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court, which had dealt with federal issues arising from the same underlying dispute, created an *Anshun* estoppel, thereby preventing the Industrial Court from exercising its jurisdiction over the state-based issue of standing. The case came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the prior Federal Court proceedings, specifically the determination by the Full Court on 13 October 2008, estopped the claimants from contending in the New South Wales Court of Appeal that the Industrial Court had erred in its decision regarding Meriton's standing. This involved considering the principles of *Anshun* estoppel, which addresses whether a party is estopped from raising issues that could and should have been litigated in earlier proceedings.

The Court of Appeal determined that the Federal Court application was confined to federal issues, and the prior determination by the Full Court did not encompass the state-based issue of standing before the Industrial Court. Applying the principles from *Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited*, the Court found that it would not be unreasonable for the claimants not to have raised the state-specific jurisdictional issue concerning the Industrial Court's standing in the Federal Court. Consequently, the Court concluded that no *Anshun* estoppel prevented the Industrial Court from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction over the matter.

The Court of Appeal answered the separate question in the negative, finding that the prior Federal Court proceedings did not estop the claimants from pursuing the issue of standing in the Industrial Court. The second respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the strike-out motion and the determination of the separate question.