Norman v Besser Industries (NT) Pty Ltd

Case [1996] IRCA 350


DECISION NO:  350/96

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of a Judge - part of compensation order stayed - tests to be applied for staying compensation orders of Judicial Registrars - requirement of “good reasons” or that it is “appropriate to intervene” - no material distinction between test to be applied to stays of orders of Judges and Judicial Registrars - relevant considerations in granting a stay include evidence as to an individual’s capacity to re-pay

Industrial Relations Act 1988 s 170DB, 170EE, 376, 377
Industrial Relations Court Rules, Order 52 rules 3, 17
High Court Rules, Order 55 rule 10
Evidence Act 1995 s75
Family Law Act 1975

AB v National Crime Authority, Federal Court of Australia, VG 765 of 1995, Full Court, 3 July 1996, per Burchett & Whitlam JJ, unreported

Adam P. Brown Male Fashion Proprietary Limited v Philip Morris Incorporated (1981) 148 CLR 170 at 177

Bysouth v Tawlord Nominees Pty Ltd (1995) 60 IR 446

Clements v Lillian Kaneff Pty Limited, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, AI 0154R of 1994, Moore J, 29 April 1996, unreported

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 220

Fitzroy Motors v Hyundai Automotive Distributors (1995) 133 ALR 445

Harris v Caladine (1992) 172 CLR 84

Kerrin v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (1986) 44 IR 246

Marshall v Main, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, VI 3910 of 1995, Marshall J, 25 July 1995, unreported

Meneling Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (1987) 20 IR 296

Stephen Earlsford Potter v Pilot Freight Pty Ltd, VI 4943R of 1995, Marshall J, 1 July 1996, unreported

Powerflex Services Pty Ltd A.C.N 007 302 810 & Ors v Data Access Corporation Registration No. 508 968, VG 295 of 1996, Burchett, Heerey & Whitlam JJ, 4 June 1996, unreported

Public Transport Corporation v Eames & Ors, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, No. VI 6073 of 1995, Full Court, 22 December 1995, unreported

R v Moore; ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union (1978) 140 CLR 470

Re Printing and Kindred Industries Union; ex parte Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1994) 122 ALR 303

Roy Stanley Jones v Swan Hill Quality Meats Pty Ltd, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, VI 3657R of 1995, Marshall J, 14 June 1996, unreported

Wyndham Lodge Nursing Home v Reader (1995) 64 IR 94

No. DI 1191R of 1995
NORMAN v BESSER INDUSTRIES (NT) PTY LTD

No. DI 1192R of 1995
STONE v BESSER INDUSTRIES (NT) PTY LTD

CORAM:    Moore, Marshall and Madgwick JJ
PLACE:    Melbourne
DATE:     1 August 1996

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS          )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA                   )
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY    )             
  No. DI 1191R of 1995

BETWEEN:        GREGORY ALAN NORMAN

Applicant

AND:  BESSER INDUSTRIES (NT) PTY LTD
  Respondent

CORAM:    Moore, Marshall and Madgwick JJ
PLACE:    Melbourne
DATE:     1 August 1996

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time within which the application for leave to appeal may be filed be extended to 29…

Continue reading Norman v Besser Industries (NT) Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Norman v Besser Industries (NT) Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 350
Case
[1996] IRCA 350
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Norman v Besser Industries (NT) Pty Ltd involved a dispute within the industrial law context, where the applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision rendered by a Judge. The core of the dispute centered around a part of a compensation order that had been stayed by the Judge. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity and appropriateness of the Judge's decision to stay the compensation order.

The legal issues the court had to address involved the criteria and tests applicable to the staying of compensation orders by Judicial Registrars. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Judge had provided "good reasons" for staying the compensation order, or if it was "appropriate to intervene." The case required the court to assess whether there was a material distinction between the tests applied to the stays of orders made by Judicial Registrars and those made by Judges.

The court, after thorough deliberation, concluded that there was no material distinction between the tests applied to stays of orders by Judicial Registrars and Judges. The court found that both roles required a demonstration of "good reasons" or an indication that it was "appropriate to intervene." Given the lack of a material distinction, the court determined that the Judge's decision to stay the compensation order did not meet the necessary criteria. Consequently, the court granted the applicant leave to appeal the interlocutory decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.