Shanahan v Australian Industrial Relations Commission

[2006] FCAFC 172

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shanahan v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2006] FCAFC 172

Workplace Relations - application for constitutional writ relief remitted by the High Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia - application at the hearing to amend grounds - application refused

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 45, 170CE, 170CH.

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194, cited.

IAN SHANAHAN v AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION AND UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY
NSD 693 OF 2006

MARSHALL, GRAHAM AND JESSUP JJ
21 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 693 OF 2006

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

IAN SHANAHAN
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY
Second Respondent

JUDGES:	MARSHALL, GRAHAM AND JESSUP JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to amend the application for an order to show cause is refused.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 693 OF 2006

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

IAN SHANAHAN
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY
Second Respondent

JUDGES:	MARSHALL, GRAHAM AND JESSUP JJ
DATE:	21 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MARSHALL AND JESSUP JJ

1. We do not consider that the proposed additional grounds of review raise any arguable basis for disclosing any jurisdictional error by the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission such that any application for an order to show cause should include them.  Each proposed ground seeks to agitate matters of merit which were questions or issues for the Full Bench of the Commission to deal with in the context of dealing with and/or deciding the application by the applicant for leave to appeal.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Marshall and Jessup.

Associate:
Dated:        30 November 2006

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 693 OF 2006

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

IAN SHANAHAN
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY
Second Respondent

JUDGES:	MARSHALL, GRAHAM AND JESSUP JJ
DATE:	21 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAHAM J

1. On 24 July 2003 the employment of the applicant by the second respondent was terminated. In accordance with s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (‘the Act’) the applicant applied to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (‘the Commission’) for relief in respect of the termination of his employment on the ground that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

2. That Application came before the Commission constituted by Senior Deputy President Cartwright, who on 5 July 2004 ordered that the Application…