Quickenden v O'Connor - [1999] FCA 1257

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Quickenden v O’Connor [1999] FCA 1257
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - powers of Commonwealth Parliament – trading or financial corporations – University established by statute – activities – The Constitution s 51(xx) – Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) Pt VIB.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – powers of Commonwealth Parliament – acquisition of property – adjustment of contractual rights – The Constitution s 51(xxxi) – Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) Pt VIB.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 78A, 78B
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) Pt VIB (Div 1, s 170LB(1)), (Div 2, ss 170LH - 170LM), (Div 3, ss 170LN – 170LS), (Div 4, ss 170LT – 170LW), (Div 6, ss 170M, 170MA), (Div 8), (Div 10, ss 170ND, 170NF); Pt IX; ss 3, 4(1), 170LE
University of Western Australia Act 1911 (WA) ss 3, 6
The Constitution ss 51(xx), 51(xxxi), 51(xxxv)
W J Ford, “Reconstructing Australian Labour Law: A Constitutional Perspective” (1997) 10 Australian Journal of Labour Law 1
Re Finance Sector Union of Australia; Ex parte Financial Clinic (Vic.) Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 352 cited
Re National Tertiary Education Industry Union; Ex parte Quickenden (1996) 71 ALJR 75 cited
Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323 followed
Newcrest Mining (WA) Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (1997) 190 CLR 513 cited
Rowe v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (1998) 160 ALR 66 cited
Reg v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte St. George County Council (1974) 130 CLR 533 cited
E v Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 99 ALR 601 cited
Reg v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Western Australian National Football League (Incorporated) (1979) 143 CLR 190 cited
The Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 cited
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 cited
The Australian Beauty Trade Suppliers Limited v Conference and Exhibition Organisers Pty Limited (1991) 29 FCR 68 cited
State Superannuation Board v Trade Practices Commission (1982) 150 CLR 282 cited
Re Ku-ring-gai Co-operative Building Society (No 12) Ltd (1978) 22 ALR 621 cited
Mutual Pools & Staff Pty Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (1994) 179 CLR 155 cited
Clunies-Ross v The Commonwealth of Australia (1984) 155 CLR 193 cited
Bank of New South Wales v The Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1 cited
The State of Victoria v The Commonwealth of Australia (1996) 187 CLR 416 cited
The Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261 cited
National Trustees Executors and Agency Company of Australasia Limited v FCT (1954) 91 CLR 540 cited
Commonwealth v WMC Resources Limited (1998) 194 CLR 1 cited
Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd v Viney [1981] 2 NSWLR 216 cited
P J Magennis Proprietory Limited v The Commonwealth (1949) 80 CLR 382 cited
Australian Tape Manufacturers Association v The Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 176 CLR 480 distinguished
Georgiadis v Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1994) 179 CLR 297 cited
Nintendo Company Limited v Centronics Systems Pty Limited (1994) 181 CLR 134 followed
TERENCE IVAN QUICKENDEN v COMMISSIONER O’CONNOR OF THE AUSTRALIAN…

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 Quickenden v O'Connor 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: [1999] FCA 1257
Decision Date: 10 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quickenden brought a motion against O’Connor and others, seeking to set aside an order made by the Court of Appeal. The motion was dismissed by the High Court. The primary dispute involved the setting aside of a Court of Appeal order, which had dismissed an appeal by Quickenden against a decision of the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court included the circumstances under which an order of the Court of Appeal could be set aside and the appropriate standard of proof required to succeed in such a motion. The court needed to determine whether Quickenden had demonstrated any grounds that would justify the setting aside of the Court of Appeal order, and whether the evidence provided met the necessary standard of proof.

The court found that Quickenden had not satisfied the necessary standard of proof for setting aside the Court of Appeal order. The Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the appeal, and there was no evidence of any error or irregularity that would warrant setting aside their decision. As a result, the motion was dismissed, and Quickenden was ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

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.