Legal Research
Cases
O'Toole, J. v Charles David Pty Ltd

O'Toole, J. v Charles David Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 8 September 1989 90 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: JACK O'TOOLE
And: CHARLES DAVID PTY LIMITED
No. 21 of 1987
FED No. 523
Industrial Law - Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
29 IR 1

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.(1), Northrop(2), Morling(3), Gray(4) and Gummow(5) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - proceedings to enforce award - whether sub-s. 60 (1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ("the Act") precludes the Federal Court from receiving evidence in enforcement proceedings to determine whether the award was made within the constitutional or statutory jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission - construction of ss. 119 and 60 of the Act - inter-relation between ss. 119 and 60 of the Act.

Constitutional Law - conciliation and arbitration - federal jurisdiction - whether sub-s. 60 (1) of the Act would be valid if on its proper construction in proceedings in the Federal Court for enforcement of an award it prevented the admission of evidence to show the award was made in excess of the constitutional jurisdiction of the Commission.

Administrative Law - applicability to ss. 119 and 60 of the Act of the reasoning in Anisminic Ltd. v Foreign Compensation Commission.

Words and Phrases - "matter".

Acts Interpretation Act 1901

Judiciary Act 1903

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904

Coal Industry Act 1946

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1956

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

Industrial Relations Act 1988

Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988

Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (UK)

Gapes v Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd. (1979) 38 FLR 431

R. v Kelly; Ex parte Berman (1953) 89 CLR 608

The King v Hickman & Ors; Ex parte Fox & Anor. (1945) 70 CLR 598

R. v The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Whybrow & Co. (1910) 11 CLR 1

R. v The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Brisbane Tramways Co. Ltd.

Shrubb v Air Pilots Guild of Australia (1979) 26 ALR 627

R. v Clarkson; Ex parte Victorian Employees Federation (1973) 131 CLR 100

Clothing & Allied Trades Union of Australia v Cocks (1968) 12 FLR 138

Ecob v Tongue (1988) 82 ALR 77

Re Federated Storemen & Packers Union of Australia; Ex parte Wooldumpers (Victoria) Ltd. (1989) 63 ALJR 286 at 290

The Queen v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte The Western Australian National Football League (Incorporated) (1979) 143 CLR 190

Philip Morris Inc. v Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty. Ltd. (1981) 148 CLR 457

Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570

Re Tooth & Co. Ltd. (No. 2) (1978) 34 FLR 112

R. v Heagney; Ex parte A.C.T. Employers Federation (1976) 137 CLR 86

The Queen v Coldham; Ex parte The Australian Workers' Union (1983) 153 CLR 415

The Queen v Kirby; Ex parte The Transport Workers' Union of Australia (1954) 91 CLR 159

The Queen v The Judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court; Ex parte Cocks (1968) 121 CLR 313

Parsons v Martin (1984) 5 FCR 235

Elna…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read O'Toole, J. v Charles David Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1989] FCA 523
Decision Date: 08 SEPTEMBER 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving a dispute between O'Toole and Charles David Pty Ltd, involving the enforcement of an award under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. The primary legal issues centered on whether certain sections of the Act precluded the court from receiving evidence to determine the validity of the award and its enforceability. Specifically, the court examined whether section 60(1) precluded evidence related to the constitutional jurisdiction of the award and whether section 119 conferred jurisdiction to impose penalties despite the award's invalidity.

The court found that section 60(1) did not preclude the court from receiving evidence on the constitutional jurisdiction of the award or the bona fide actions of the Commission member. Additionally, the court held that sections 60(1) and 119 were not invalid under the Constitution. The court clarified that section 119 did not require the applicant to prove the award's validity as a prerequisite to enforcement and did not confer jurisdiction to impose penalties if the award was beyond the Commission's constitutional jurisdiction.

In summary, the court answered the reserved questions in favor of the applicant, affirming that the sections of the Act in question did not impede the court's ability to enforce awards and were not unconstitutional. The court's ruling ensures that the enforcement of awards remains within the court's jurisdiction, provided the awards are within the constitutional limits of the Commission's authority.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT orders that the Questions reserved in the Special Case be answered as follows:

Question (a): Does s. 60 (1) of the Act, on its true construction, preclude the Court, in proceedings under s. 119 of the Act, from receiving evidence for the purpose of determining whether the Award was or was not made within the constitutional jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission?

Answer: No.

Question (b): Does s. 60 (1) of the Act, on its true construction, preclude the Court, in proceedings under s. 119 of the Act, from receiving evidence for the purpose of determining whether the member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who purported to make the Award did or did not act or attempt to act bona fide in the course of his authority under the Act?

Answer: No.

Question (c): If and to the extent to which s. 60 (1) of the Act precludes the Court, in proceedings under s. 119 of the Act, from receiving evidence of the kinds contemplated in questions (a) and (b), is s. 60 (1) of the Act invalid as being beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth under the Constitution?

Answer: Sub-section 60 (1) of the Act, construed in accordance with the answers to Questions (a) and (b), is not invalid.

Question (d): Does s. 119 of the Act, on its true construction, confer jurisdiction on the Court to impose a penalty for breach or non-observance of the Award if in fact the Award is made beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission?

Answer: No.

Question (e): If and to the extent to which s. 119 of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Court to impose a penalty for breach or non-observance of the Award, where the Award was in fact made beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, is s. 119 of the Act invalid as being beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth under the Constitution?

Answer: Section 119 of the Act, construed in accordance with the answer to Question (d), is not invalid.

Question (f): To the extent to which s. 60 (1) of the Act precludes the Court, in a proceeding under s. 119 of the Act, from receiving evidence that the Award was made beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, is s. 119 of the Act beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth under the Constitution?

Answer: Sub-section 60 (1) of the Act is not to be construed in the manner stated in this Question and s. 119 is not invalid.

Question (g): Does s. 119 of the Act require the applicant to prove as part of his case the validity of the Award of which the respondent is alleged to have committed a breach or non-observance?

Answer: No.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.