Re Jarman; Ex parte Cook (No 2)

The Industrial Relations Court of Australia, constituted by Brennan CJ, Gaudron and Kirby JJ, considered an application by Mr Cook for prerogative relief in the form of writs of certiorari and mandamus. The application arose from an inquiry conducted by the Court into alleged irregularities in an election for union officers. Mr Cook sought to compel the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to certain offices, the election for which he contended was the subject of the inquiry.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was the proper construction of the phrase "an office to which the inquiry relates" within Part IX Division 5 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1988* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether this phrase limited the scope of the inquiry to only those offices for which specific irregularities had been alleged and investigated, or if it extended to other offices within the union. A further issue concerned the application of section 347(1) of the Act, which deals with costs awarded against a party acting "without reasonable cause".

The Court reasoned that the phrase "an office to which the inquiry relates" in section 221 of the Act confined the Court's power to inquire into irregularities to those offices for which the election was the subject of the inquiry. This meant that the inquiry could not be extended to offices where no specific allegations of irregularity had been made or investigated. The Court also considered the nature of prerogative relief, noting that it was available to compel the exercise of jurisdiction but not to direct the manner in which that jurisdiction should be exercised. The Court dismissed the notice of motion, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the relevant offices.

The Court ordered that the notice of motion be dismissed.