Legal Research
Cases
Tryam Pty Ltd v Grainco Australia Ltd

Tryam Pty Ltd v Grainco Australia Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 5 September 2003 80 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Tryam Pty Ltd & Anor v. Grainco Australia Ltd & Ors [2003] NSWSC 812

HEARING DATE(S): 30 April, 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 September 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division
Commercial List

JUDGMENT OF: Palmer J

DECISION: Proceedings transferred to Supreme Court of Queensland; Notice of Motion challenging jurisdiction under s.106 Industrial Relations Act stood over to be determined by Supreme Court of Queensland, if required.

CATCHWORDS: JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) to decide matters of substance in a proceeding transferred to the Court under s.8(1) - whether and to what extent Supreme Court should consider prospects of success in such a proceeding in order to determine whether it is "in the interests of justice" to transfer the proceeding to another Court - INDUSTRIAL LAW - UNFAIR CONTRACTS - Whether Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction under s.106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) only in respect of contracts the proper law of which is that of New South Wales - whether conflict between decisions of the Full Bench of the Commission and decision of the High Court - HIGH COURT - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION - Whether privative clause in Industrial Relations Act has effect of making Full Bench of Commission the supreme authority on extent of Commission's jurisdiction under Industrial Relations Act - UNFAIR CONTRACTS - s.106 Industrial Relations Act - meaning of "work in any industry" discussed - CROSS-VESTING - Whether proceedings sought to be cross-vested have sufficient substance to warrant cross-vesting in the interests of justice - whether Supreme Court of Queensland or Supreme Court of New South Wales is the more appropriate forum - significance of contractual provision requiring parties to submit to exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Queensland.

LEGISLATION CITED: - Financial Emergency Act 1931 (Vic)
- Grain Marketing Act 1991 (NSW)
- Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (NSW) - s.88F
- Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW) - s.275
- Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) - s.105, s.106, s.179
- Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld) - s.276
- Interest Reduction Act 1931 (NSW)
- Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) - s.33, s.39(2)
- Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) - s.5, s.6, .6A, s.8
- Service and Execution of Process Act 1901 (Cth) - s.11
- Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) - s.48
- Supreme Court Rules Pt.1 r.1.3
- Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) - s.67
- Workers Compensation Act 1928 (Vic)
- Commonwealth Constitution - Chapter III, s.73

CASES CITED: - Ace Business Brokers Pty Ltd v Phillips-Treby [2000] NSWIRComm 163
- Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v Osborne [1910] AC 87
- Australian Entre Business Centres Pty Ltd v Smith (1989) 29 IR 172
- Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711
- Barcelo v Electrolytic Zinc Co of Australia Ltd (1932) 48 CLR 391
- BNY Australia Ltd v James (1992) 40 IR 1
- Bonython v Commonwealth (1950) 81 CLR 486
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v F.H. Faulding & Co Ltd

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 Tryam Pty Ltd v Grainco Australia Ltd 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: [2003] NSWSC 812
Decision Date: 5 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tryam Pty Ltd brought an action against Grainco Australia Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking various remedies related to an alleged unfair contract. The dispute centred on the interpretation of an industrial relations contract and the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission. Grainco applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, arguing that the jurisdictional issues raised were more appropriately decided by the New South Wales court. The case required the Queensland court to consider the jurisdictional implications of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) and the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW).

The primary legal issues revolved around the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Supreme Court of New South Wales to hear the matter, particularly in light of the cross-vesting provisions and the privative clause in the Industrial Relations Act. The court also had to determine whether the Industrial Relations Commission's jurisdiction was limited to contracts governed by New South Wales law. Another critical issue was the conflict between the decisions of the Full Bench of the Commission and the decision of the High Court. The court needed to assess whether the Supreme Court of Queensland should consider the prospects of success in the proceeding to determine if it was in the interests of justice to transfer the case to another court.

The Supreme Court of Queensland held that the cross-vesting provisions of the Act allowed the court to transfer the matter if it was in the interests of justice to do so. The court considered the substantiality of the jurisdictional issues and whether the New South Wales court was better placed to decide them. The court noted the contractual provision stipulating that any disputes should be resolved by the Courts of Queensland, which influenced its decision. The court found that the New South Wales court was more appropriate to decide the jurisdictional issues and, accordingly, transferred the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The final orders included the transfer of the proceeding to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the Queensland court retaining jurisdiction to decide any incidental matters arising from the transfer. The court also directed the parties to comply with any further orders or directions from the New South Wales court.

Orders