FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde [2002] FCA 250
INDUSTRIAL LAW – awards – construction - industry practice – meaning of “work” – “sleepover shift” – whether worker on “sleepover shift” is at work or “on call”
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – declaratory judgments – nature of – split trial – whether rights have been declared – whether final or interlocutory – issue estoppel – whether declaratory judgment can be void – setting down for trial – bringing forward trial date – discretionary considerations – prospective application to amend award
WORDS & PHRASES – “work”
Industrial Relations Act 1992 (Vic)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss 178(1), 178(6), 179AAlgama v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1884 referred to
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1923) 18 CAR 852 referred to
Attorney-General (Northern Territory) v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (1987) 73 ALR 33 referred to
Attorney-General v Foster (1999) 84 FCR 582 referred toAustralian Builders’ Labourers’ Federated Union of Workers – Western Australian Branch v J-Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 452 referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IMB Group Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 313 referred to
Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union v Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 975 referred to
Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Barnes (1995) 125 FLR 335 referred to
Baker v R [1975] AC 774 referred toBass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 referred to
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) [2001] FCA 1833 referred toByrne v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 CLR 410 referred to
Caboche v Ramsay (1993) 119 ALR 215 referred to
Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571 referred toCarl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] AC 853 referred to
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027 referred to
Clarke v Chadburn [1985] 1 WLR 78 referred toColes v Wood [1981] 1 NSWLR 723 referred to
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Employment Advocate [2001] FCA 1442 referred to
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297 referred to
Duralla Pty Ltd v Plant (1984) 2 FCR 342 referred toEastern Trust Co v McKenzie, Mann & Co Ltd [1915] AC 750 referred to
Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union (1942) 48 CAR 85 referred to
Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630 referred toFisher & Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239 referred to
Fraser v NRMA Holdings Limited (1995) 55 FCR 452 referred to
Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285 referred to
Harrison-Broadley v Smith [1964] 1 WLR 456 referred toHoltby v Hodgson (1889) 24 QBD 103 referred to
Hospital Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers v Proprietors of Lee-Downs Nursing Home (1977) 57 WAIG 455 discussed
Humphris v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (1999) 32 ACSR 537 referred to
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] FCA 250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Pryde was indeed guilty of the misconduct as alleged and, if so, whether the damages claimed by Warramunda Village Inc were justified. Additionally, the court needed to assess the validity of the corporation's claims and the extent to which any misconduct by Pryde had impacted the corporation. The court also considered the procedural aspects of the case, including whether the claims were within the statute of limitations and if the corporation had followed proper legal procedures in bringing the action.
The court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the credibility of witnesses. It concluded that the allegations of misconduct against Pryde were not substantiated by the evidence. The court found that the claims by Warramunda Village Inc were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish liability on the part of Pryde. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal brought by Warramunda Village Inc, upholding the earlier decision that Pryde was not liable for the claimed damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal be dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.