Re Aggett & Ors; Ex parte Australian Airlines Limited
Case
•
[1992] HCATrans 359
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re Aggett & Ors; Ex parte Australian Airlines Limited [1992] HCATrans 359
[1992] HCATrans 359
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Australian Airlines Limited sought orders for certiorari and prohibition against the Honourable Michael Francis Moore (Vice President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission), the Honourable Simon John Williams (Deputy President), and Commissioners Rupert George Sweeney and Kenneth John McDonald. The application concerned proceedings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the proceedings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission should be allowed to continue at that stage, in light of an affidavit filed by the respondents. This affidavit, it was suggested, contained assertions about statements made by Australian Airlines Limited in the Commission that were disputed by the airline.
The Court considered whether to accept the contents of the affidavit, particularly paragraph 2, as evidence. Australian Airlines Limited argued that certain assertions within that paragraph, concerning the progressive integration of pilots into Qantas including subsidiaries, were not supported by the deponent's knowledge and were contrary to their instructions. They contended that better evidence, such as a transcript, would be required to prove such sweeping statements, especially the contentious final lines of the paragraph. The Court indicated it would hear from the respondents on this aspect.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the proceedings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission should be allowed to continue at that stage, in light of an affidavit filed by the respondents. This affidavit, it was suggested, contained assertions about statements made by Australian Airlines Limited in the Commission that were disputed by the airline.
The Court considered whether to accept the contents of the affidavit, particularly paragraph 2, as evidence. Australian Airlines Limited argued that certain assertions within that paragraph, concerning the progressive integration of pilots into Qantas including subsidiaries, were not supported by the deponent's knowledge and were contrary to their instructions. They contended that better evidence, such as a transcript, would be required to prove such sweeping statements, especially the contentious final lines of the paragraph. The Court indicated it would hear from the respondents on this aspect.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0