Michael v Director-General of Department of Education and Training
[2008] WASCA 255
•12 NOVEMBER 2008
MICHAEL -v- DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING [2008] WASCA 255
| WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL APPEAL COURT | Citation No: | [2008] WASCA 255 | |
| Case No: | IAC:4/2008 | 12 NOVEMBER 2008 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER J (Deputy Presiding Judge) PULLIN J LE MIERE J | 11/11/08 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | EDWARD MICHAEL DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING |
Catchwords: | Appeal from Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission Full Bench refusal of interlocutory applications Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s 90(1) No right of appeal |
Legislation: | Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s 90(1) |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL APPEAL COURT CITATION : MICHAEL -v- DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING [2008] WASCA 255 CORAM : WHEELER J (Deputy Presiding Judge)
- PULLIN J
LE MIERE J
- Appellant
AND
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Coram : M T RITTER AP
- BEECH CC
SCOTT C
Citation : [2008] WAIRC 331
File No : FBA 27 of 2006
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Appeal from Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission - Full Bench refusal of interlocutory applications - Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s 90(1) - No right of appeal
Legislation:
Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s 90(1)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Ms R M Hartley
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
1 WHEELER J (Deputy Presiding Judge): I agree with the reasons of Pullin J.
2 PULLIN J: This appeal has been listed to determine whether the appellant has any right of appeal in relation to the grounds he has raised. The appellant commenced proceedings under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. Commissioner Harrison heard the case and dismissed the appellant's claim.
3 The appellant then appealed to the Full Bench of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The appellant made two interlocutory applications which are referred to in the Full Bench reasons at [7].
4 The first was an application to the Full Bench to receive and consider new and additional materials not in evidence at first instance. The second application was for the full bench to look at and listen to the video recording of the proceedings at first instance.
5 The appellant was given a full opportunity to be heard and was permitted to identify all of the new and additional materials he wished to rely upon and the Full Bench carefully considered the appellant's submissions and gave detailed reasons why the applications should be dismissed. The Full Bench made orders which are referred to at [139] of their reasons and they read:
(1) The appellant's application to the Full Bench to consider new and additional material dated 27 August 2007 is dismissed.
(2) The appellant's application to the Full Bench to listen to the audio record and view the video record of the proceedings at first instance dated 27 August 2007 is dismissed.
6 The appellant has now appealed to this court against those orders. The notice of appeal is contained in a letter from the appellant which was filed in the Western Australian Industrial Appeal Court on 6 October 2008 and the letter contains in effect two grounds repeating the arguments which had been advanced before the Full Court. The first ground was:
First my lawyer did not present any documents at the first hearing of my case. Whilst attending at court I had no idea that my lawyer was not going to present any documentary evidence and I was under the understanding that these papers were included in the court file but found out later that this was not the situation. My lawyer did in fact use documents supplied by the education department. Some of these documents were forgeries.
(Page 4)
- Only after the decision was made I was able to then check the court file so did not know until that time that the documents have been excluded. I found out that there were over 250 documents and these documents proved that the documents that did get included in the court details were forged or fabricated documents.
7 The second ground was:
I also found the video and audio records from the court that matched and demonstrated the body language and interaction between my lawyer and the witnesses. This clearly shows that the interaction was not what should be taking place in a court of law but just appeared to be a meeting with little formal jurisdiction, the sole aim being to remove me from the education department.
8 The appellant's oral submissions today related to the conduct of his lawyer before the Commissioner and rehearsed many of the points which were put to the Full Bench. Section 90(1) of the Industrial Relations Act provides that an appeal lies to this court on three permitted grounds; the first being that the decision is in excess of jurisdiction in that the matter, the subject of the decision, is not an industrial matter. The second is that the decision was erroneous in law in that there has been an error in the construction or interpretation of any Act, regulation, award, industrial agreement, or order in the course of making the decision appealed against; and the third is that the appellant has been denied the right to be heard.
9 The section also states expressly that no other ground is permitted. The appellant's grounds which I have described are not grounds that fall within any of the permitted grounds listed in s 90(1) of the Industrial Relations Act.
10 For that reason the appeal must be dismissed.
11 LE MIERE J: I agree with Pullin J.
0
0
1