Australian Document Exchange Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia
[2000] QCA 58
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Australian Document Exchange Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia[2000] QCA 58
- Add to List
Australian Document Exchange Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia[2000] QCA 58
Australian Document Exchange Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia[2000] QCA 58
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
No 1484 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN DOCUMENT EXCHANGE PTY LTD Applicant (Respondent)
v
TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA Respondent (Applicant)
BRISBANE
DATE 08/03/2000
ORDER
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant applies for a stay of the decision of the Full Bench of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, given on 4 February 2000, dismissing its application to summarily dismiss an application by the respondent seeking an order declaring it to be an employee under section 275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999.
Prior to the hearing of the application before the Commission the applicant agreed in principle to draft directions. After the decision dismissing the application the parties discussed a timetable and directions and reached an agreement loosely based on the earlier draft directions and directions orders were made. The applicant's counsel before the Commission noted that it was likely that there would be an appeal and an application for a stay. The applicant now also seeks a stay of those directions orders for discovery and inspection of documents, made with its apparent consent and an order that no further directions orders be made pending the determination of the appeal.
The appeal before this Court comes by way of section 340 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 which provides for an appeal only on the grounds of error of law or excess or want of jurisdiction. The applicant submits the Commission has made an error of law.
The respondent intends to argue that no appeal in this case lies under section 340 as "decision" in context has a restricted meaning relating to a final decision or determination: see Director-General of Social Services v. Chaney (1980) 31 ALR 571.
The onus is on the applicant to justify the granting of a stay which would delay the progress of this beneficial action which is in the Industrial Relations Commission.
Without commenting on the merits of the appeal, the applicant does not submit that it has a strongly arguable case nor that the case in the Industrial Relations Commission would be heard prior to the hearing of any appeal. I informed the parties that there was some prospect that this appeal could be heard this afternoon but this was not convenient to the applicant's legal representatives. The next available date was 4 April and the matter will be listed for hearing at that time. The parties concede that the prompt listing of this appeal means that it will almost certainly be heard prior to the hearing of the case in the Industrial Relations Commission. The respondent has agreed that in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to request any further directions for trial preparation prior to the hearing of the appeal.
The applicant claims that the discovery and inspection orders should nevertheless be stayed, firstly, as they would allow the respondent to have access to highly confidential information regarding the operation of the applicant's business and secondly they would involve considerable expense which would be unlikely to be compensated by any costs order because of the provisions as to costs under the Industrial Relations Act 1999.
As to the first matter, the respondent agrees in principle that it can provide a confidentiality clause; the details of such an agreement can be worked out between the parties' solicitors and, failing agreement, an application made to the Industrial Relations Commission. I note that it is desirable that agreement be reached in an effort to save costs.
As to the second matter, the respondent points out that any prejudice to the applicant is no greater than the prejudice in delaying the progress of the matter before the Industrial Relations Commission to that class of persons who are allegedly being held out of money to which they are entitled and who cannot be compensated retrospectively in respect of any future order made by the Industrial Relations Commission.
In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to establish proper reasons warranting the granting of a stay in this case. I dismiss the application.
Do you ask for costs? Have you got anything to say Mr Martin?
MR MARTIN: I have no submissions, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: I dismiss the application with costs to be assessed.
Now if I could ask your solicitors to liaise as soon as possible with the Registry for a timetabling for the preparation of the appeal. There will need to be an appeal record book prepared and outlines and so forth. Because it's coming on shortly, that will have to be attended to strictly in accordance with the timetable given by the Registry. So if they could contact the Registry today.
MR APPLEGARTH: Thank you, your Honour.