Rossmick No 1 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland

The case involved Rossmick No 1 Pty Ltd and other "OMB parties" (applicants) and the Bank of Queensland Ltd (respondent). The dispute originated from agency agreements entered into by the OMB parties with the Bank. The OMB parties had commenced proceedings in the Industrial Court of New South Wales seeking relief under s 106 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* (NSW). These proceedings were subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Concurrently, the Bank had commenced proceedings in the Federal Court, seeking, among other things, a prohibition against the Industrial Court hearing the s 106 proceedings, based on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court of New South Wales, constituted by Basten and Meagher JJA and Sackville AJA, considered an application for leave to appeal concerning pleadings in the Federal Court proceedings, which had been cross-vested to the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the application for leave to appeal in the Federal Court proceedings should be stayed, and whether the underlying Federal Court proceedings themselves should be stayed. A further issue concerned the appropriate disposition of the costs of the application for leave to appeal, specifically whether these costs should be determined by the trial judge in the principal proceedings. The Court also considered whether the Federal Court proceedings, which appeared to have the sole purpose of resolving a constitutional issue, constituted an abuse of process, particularly given that the Industrial Court proceedings, which they sought to prohibit, had already been transferred to the Supreme Court.

The Court reasoned that the Federal Court proceedings, which sought to prohibit the Industrial Court from hearing matters that had already been transferred to the Supreme Court, appeared to be an abuse of process. Furthermore, the application for leave to appeal related to pleadings in these Federal Court proceedings, which themselves were questionable. Given the circumstances, the Court decided to stay the application for leave to appeal and also stayed the underlying Federal Court proceedings. The Court directed that the costs of the parties in the Supreme Court be costs in the three transferred proceedings pending in the Equity Division, which involved challenges to the operation of s 106 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* on constitutional grounds.