McMahon v Gould
[1995] IRCA 442
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Industrial Relations Court of Australia
Decision date
1995-08-15
Before
Dove J
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (1 paragraphs)
I am not prepared to stay the proceedings in this Court. I am guided by the principles set out in McMahon v Gould [1982] 1 ACLC 98 such principles being adopted by the Chief Justice of this Court while sitting in the Federal Court in Cameron's Unit Services Pty Ltd v Whelpton and Associates [1984] 4 FCR 428 and also by me in Cargill v Shire of Lilydale [1984] 58 IR 332. (These principles were cited by the Court in their entirety during the hearing). I have noted that the motion is that the Court order that proceedings VI-3513, VI-3514, VI-3515, VI-3516 and VI-3542 be stayed until the hearing and determination of proceeding number 95/04212 in the County Court of Victoria. I have had the opportunity to read the statement of claim in the County Court action and I have noted the consent order of Dove J on 19 July 1995. I also note that (1) on its face, in terms of the County Court Statement of Claim, it is only in respect of one applicant, Susan Simonds, that a County Court claim is made relating to the period of employment set out in the applications before this Court (2) the applicants in Matters VI-3513 and VI-3515 are not involved as defendants in the County Court proceedings (3) proceedings in this Court were issued first. The proceedings in this Court have proceeded in their normal course through conciliation. Conciliation has been unsuccessful and it is the practice of this Court that matters be set down for hearing as soon as practicable. I am fully aware that proceedings in this Court are likely to be heard before the end of this calendar year and that proceedings in the County Court are unlikely to proceed at least until some time next year and possibly late next year. The whole structure of Division 3 Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 is predicated on the basis that applications of this type should go to hearing and be resolved as quickly as practicable (see Mahnken v Saunders Logging Pty Ltd [1994] 57 IR 237). I am proposing to now, by way of directions hearing, deal with these applications and explore the possibility of setting them down for trial, the dates for such trial and any orders that might be sought of me in relation to such trial. ORDERS: