//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1996] AIRC 441
defendant. Application dismissed; appeal adjourned sine die with right to either party to apply or for Commission to re-list after orders are signed.
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
A company tried to appeal against an industrial award that a Commissioner had talked about making in court, but hadn't actually signed yet. The Commission said you can't appeal something that doesn't officially exist yet—there needs to be a signed document first. They also couldn't put a hold (stay) on the award for the same reason. The Commission suggested the company go back to the original Commissioner and ask to be heard on the proposed orders instead, which would save everyone time and money. The appeal was put on hold indefinitely until the proper paperwork was signed.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Industrial Relations Act 1988 s.45 appeal against an award and order [not signed or issued] by Hoffman C
Commercial computer Centre Pty Limited (C No. 21509 of 1996)
s.113 application for variation
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
BUSINESS EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY (CLERICAL OFFICERS) CONSOLIDATED
AWARD, 1985 (ODN C No. 02629 of 1971) [Print F9841 [B0054]]
Various employees Business equipment industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT POLITES MELBOURNE, 29 MAY 1996
The following decision, now edited, was given by the Commission in transcript on 21 May 1996.
This is an appeal expressed to be against an award made by Hoffman C at Melbourne on 16 April 1996. Having heard Mr De Meyrick of Counsel for the appellant and Mr Rankin for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU), in my view, it is clear that the appeal can be described as premature. Hoffman C, although he indicated on 16 April 1996 in the transcript that he proposed to make two orders or awards, has not signed either order or award and therefore no order or award exists in an appealable form at this point of time.
I have, however, heard in some considerable detail the respective positions of the parties in relation to the matter. Whilst it is a matter for Hoffman C, I do consider Mr De Meyrick, that it would be appropriate to approach Hoffman C, outlining the circumstances as to service which are disclosed in the notice of appeal and which you put to me today, and asking that you be heard in relation to the two proposed orders. I consider that that would be an expeditious course to resolve the matter and may avoid both parties being involved in the unnecessary expense of a further notice of appeal, further stay proceedings and the like, so I would recommend that consideration be given to that course.
In the final analysis, however, at this stage the appeal is premature, there is no power to award a stay order and so I dismiss the application in a formal sense. The appeal generally will be adjourned sine die with a right to either party to apply or for the Commission to re-list the matter in due course after the orders are signed.
J. De Meyrick of Counsel for Commercial Computer Centre Pty Limited.
R. Rankin for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union.
Order - variation - appeal - various employees - business equipment industry - stay application - award/order subject of appeal not signed so no appealable document exists - application dismissed - leave reserved to apply for relisting when documents signed.
Application dismissed; appeal adjourned sine die with right to either party to apply or for Commission to re-list after orders are signed.