• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd operated a taxi and entered into a bailment arrangement with Mr Ranjeev Kumar. NSW Industrial Relations commenced a prosecution against Tanwar in the Chief Industrial Magistrate's Court alleging breach of s 357 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The charge concerned failure to provide Mr Kumar with entitlements said to be owing to a permanent bailee under the Taxi Drivers' (Contract Drivers) Determination 1984. A Combined Communications Taxi Network sign-on/sign-off report relating to Mr Kumar was tendered by the prosecutor and became an exhibit at first instance.

At the hearing before Goodwin LCM (sitting as Acting Chief Industrial Magistrate) on 27 June 2014, Tanwar, represented by counsel and solicitor, conducted its defence on the explicit premise that Mr Kumar was a permanent bailee rather than a casual bailee. This included express concessions to that effect. Mr Kumar was cross-examined by Tanwar's counsel on the footing that he was a permanent bailee; one exchange recorded in the judgment asked: "You knew you were a permanent bailee, didn't you? You understood you were a permanent bailee? You knew you were permanent?" The witness answered that he knew he was a permanent taxi driver for Tanwar. The cross-examination formed part of an attack on the witness's credit. The Report was before the court but the argument now sought to be raised—that certain shifts logged in the Report did not comply with the definition of "shift" in cll 2(f), (g) and (h) of the Determination and that this meant Mr Kumar was not a permanent bailee—was never put to the CIM.

Tanwar was convicted. It obtained an extension of time to appeal under s 197(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 from Boland AJ in earlier proceedings ([2014] NSWIC 2), and the CIM's orders were stayed. On 12 December 2014 Tanwar filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to amend its appeal grounds to introduce the new construction point based on the Report. Affidavits were read from Mr Simons (solicitor for Tanwar) on 12 December 2014 and 18 February 2015, from Mr Tanwar on 18 February 2015, and from Ms Wallace for the respondent on 16 January 2015. No objections were taken to the evidence.

The respondent opposed the motion, describing the new argument as a "180 degree shift". It noted that Tanwar had had every opportunity to raise the point, cross-examine on the Report, and explore the factual issues surrounding shift lengths, but had chosen not to. The respondent foreshadowed an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence if the motion succeeded; that evidence would address taxi driver duties, usage of the taxi otherwise than while logged on, and events such as accidents or illness that might affect shift length but not appear in the Report. Tanwar initially indicated it would seek leave to adduce further affidavit evidence to explain the Report but ultimately withdrew any such application.

The motion was heard on 24 February 2015 before Kite AJ. On 5 March 2015 his Honour delivered an interlocutory judgment dismissing the motion and reserving costs. The reasons make clear that the new point would require factual exploration that ought to have occurred at first instance and that the complete reversal of the appellant's position could not be permitted in the absence of most exceptional circumstances.

Why the court decided this way

Kite AJ began by noting that it was unnecessary to resolve the technical difficulties with the interaction between s 197 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 that had been flagged by Boland AJ. The parties had not fully argued the precise character of the appeal. What was common ground, however, was that the appeal was not a hearing de novo (citing Drake Personnel Ltd v Workcover Authority (NSW) [1999] NSWIRComm 343; (1999) 90 IR 464). Whether the appeal was by way of rehearing or appeal stricto sensu, the ability to introduce new evidence or new issues remained tightly constrained.

Section 170 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 confers power to amend proceedings at any stage if the Commission considers it necessary in the interests of justice. Kite AJ treated the motion as an application to invoke that power to add a ground that had never been agitated below. His Honour then turned to the High Court authorities that govern such applications. He set out at length the reasoning in Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1 at 7-8. That passage emphasises that even on a rehearing the issues are not "at large". The public interest in the finality of litigation, the avoidance of tactical decisions to withhold points for appeal, and the unfairness of requiring a respondent to meet new factual and legal issues for the first time on appeal, all point against allowing new arguments.

The judgment repeats the key statement from University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) [1985] HCA 28; (1985) 60 ALR 68 that "it is elementary that a party is bound by the conduct of his case. Except in the most exceptional circumstances, it would be contrary to all principle to allow a party, after a case had been decided against him, to raise a new argument which, whether deliberately or by inadvertence, he failed to put during the hearing when he had an opportunity to do so." Kite AJ expressly found that no such exceptional circumstances existed. On the contrary, the new argument was "directly contradictory" to the position Tanwar had advanced before the CIM.

His Honour rejected Tanwar's submission that no fresh evidence would be required. The respondent's foreshadowed application demonstrated that factual matters—duties of a taxi driver, what constituted "usage" outside logged-on periods, the impact of accidents or illness on shift length—would need to be investigated. These were matters that "should have been explored at first instance". Citing Coulton v Holcombe, Kite AJ held that it was sufficient to dispose of the motion that evidence "could have prevented the point from succeeding" had it been raised below.

The forensic history reinforced the conclusion. Tanwar had had the benefit of counsel and solicitor. The concessions that Mr Kumar was a permanent bailee had shaped the entire conduct of the trial, including the cross-examination of the prosecution's witness. Allowing the amendment would encourage the very mischief the High Court had condemned: treating the first-instance hearing as a "preliminary skirmish" and keeping arguments in reserve for the appeal. Kite AJ was not satisfied that the interests of justice favoured the amendment. The motion was therefore dismissed and costs reserved pending the balance of the appeal.

Before and after state of the law

Prior to this judgment the law was settled at High Court level. Coulton v Holcombe and University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) had made clear that the default position on any appeal (whether to an intermediate or ultimate court) is that a party may not raise a new point that was not run at first instance if the opposite party might have met it with evidence. Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd [1950] HCA 35; (1950) 81 CLR 418 and O'Brien v Komesaroff [1982] HCA 33; (1982) 150 CLR 310 stood for the same proposition. In the industrial relations sphere, the principle had been applied to proceedings before the Industrial Relations Commission (as it then was).

Section 170 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 had long conferred a broad discretion to amend "in the interests of justice". What this judgment clarifies is that the statutory discretion must be exercised conformably with the High Court authorities. The "interests of justice" do not extend to permitting a complete forensic reversal that would require new factual inquiry on matters deliberately left unexplored below. The judgment also confirms that the procedural provisions of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 imported into s 197(2) of the IR Act do not convert the appeal into a hearing de novo; fresh evidence remains exceptional.

After the judgment the law remains unchanged in its fundamentals but is now more explicitly mapped onto appeals from the Chief Industrial Magistrate to the Industrial Court. Practitioners appearing in such matters are on clear notice that a deliberate forensic choice at first instance—such as an express concession that a driver is a permanent bailee—will ordinarily bind the appellant on appeal. The decision reinforces that the Industrial Court will not lightly allow amendment under s 170 where the new ground would necessitate fresh evidence or cross-examination that could have occurred before the CIM. The reservation of the question whether the appeal is a rehearing or appeal stricto sensu leaves that procedural point for future argument, but the substantive principle against new points is unaffected.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The judgment contains several set-piece extracts from High Court authority. At the heart of the consideration is this passage from University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2), reproduced by Kite AJ:

"It is elementary that a party is bound by the conduct of his case. Except in the most exceptional circumstances, it would be contrary to all principle to allow a party, after a case had been decided against him, to raise a new argument which, whether deliberately or by inadvertence, he failed to put during the hearing when he had an opportunity to do so."

Plain-English translation: Once you have run your case a certain way in the trial court, you cannot suddenly switch tactics on appeal unless something truly extraordinary has happened. The court expects the real fight to occur at first instance, not on appeal.

From Coulton v Holcombe the judgment quotes:

"To say that an appeal is by way of rehearing does not mean that the issues and the evidence to be considered are at large. It is fundamental to the due administration of justice that the substantial issues between the parties are ordinarily settled at the trial. If it were not so the main arena for the settlement of disputes would move from the court of first instance to the appellate court, tending to reduce the proceedings in the former court to little more than a preliminary skirmish."

Plain-English translation: Even if the appeal is a rehearing, you do not get to start the whole case again with new arguments. The trial is the main event. If everyone saved their best points for the appeal, trials would become meaningless warm-ups.

Kite AJ's own conclusion is succinct:

"I am not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to amend the application to appeal so as to introduce a new issue for determination in these proceedings."

Plain-English translation: Having weighed the contradictory position taken below, the opportunity Tanwar had to raise the point, and the likelihood that fresh evidence would now be needed, the judge decided that fairness and efficiency both pointed to refusal.

The cross-examination extract is also reproduced:

"Q. You knew you were a permanent bailee, didn't you? You understood you were a permanent bailee? You knew you were permanent? A. I, I knew that I was a permanent taxi driver for him."

Plain-English translation: Tanwar's own lawyer had nailed the witness to the "permanent bailee" label as part of the trial strategy. It is impossible to pretend later that the label was never accepted.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This precedent is triggered whenever a litigant in Industrial Court appeal proceedings under s 197 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 seeks to introduce, by amendment under s 170, a ground or argument that:

• was not pleaded, not opened, and not the subject of evidence or submission before the Local Court (Chief Industrial Magistrate);
• could have been met by evidence or cross-examination that might possibly have defeated the point;
• represents a direct contradiction of an express concession or the forensic premise on which the case was run below; or
• would require the respondent to meet new factual issues (for example, the precise meaning of "shift", the impact of downtime, or the duties of a bailee) for the first time on appeal.

Typical triggers include attempts to recharacterise the same documentary evidence (such as a sign-on/sign-off report) in a manner never suggested at trial, or to re-open the status of a worker (permanent versus casual) after that status has been conceded for tactical reasons. The precedent applies with special force where counsel and instructing solicitor were present at first instance, so the failure to raise the point cannot be dismissed as oversight by an unrepresented litigant. It is not triggered by pure questions of law arising on admitted facts, but is almost invariably engaged when the new point has a factual penumbra that was never investigated.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself treats Coulton v Holcombe and University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) as binding and directly applicable to industrial appeals. Kite AJ draws no distinction between intermediate and ultimate appellate courts in the application of those principles. He cites the Court of Appeal's summary of the public-interest considerations—finality, difficulty of new facts on appeal, undesirability of tactical withholding, and the need to avoid surprising the opposite party—as accurately capturing the policy that must guide the s 170 discretion.

The decision applies Drake Personnel Ltd v Workcover Authority (NSW) for the limited proposition that an appeal under the predecessor legislation was not a hearing de novo. By leaving unresolved the precise mapping of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 provisions, the judgment implicitly treats the High Court authorities as operating independently of the exact appellate mechanism. No part of the reasoning suggests that the industrial context or the protective purpose of the IR Act dilutes the ordinary rule against new points. The refusal of leave is expressed to rest on the absence of "most exceptional circumstances", echoing the language of the High Court decisions without modification.

Still-open questions

Several procedural and substantive questions are expressly left open. First, the judgment notes the "difficulties with the operation of these sub-sections" identified by Boland AJ in the earlier extension-of-time decision but declines to resolve them because the parties had not fully argued the point. The exact interplay between s 197(2) of the IR Act and the rehearing provisions in Part 3 versus the appeal provisions in Part 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 therefore remains undecided in this proceeding.

Second, the character of the appeal—whether it is a rehearing on the evidence or an appeal stricto sensu—is not determined. Kite AJ holds only that, on either characterisation, the ability to adduce new evidence is constrained and the Coulton principle applies. Future cases will need to decide which statutory pathway actually governs.

Third, the precise boundaries of "most exceptional circumstances" are not spelled out. The judgment makes clear that a deliberate forensic choice to concede permanent-bailee status and then reverse it on appeal falls well outside those boundaries, but does not catalogue what factual or legal scenarios might qualify.

Fourth, the interaction between s 170 amendment power and the foreshadowed fresh-evidence application by the respondent is left for another day. The judge accepts that fresh evidence would be required but does not decide whether leave to adduce it would have been granted had the amendment been allowed.

Finally, the judgment reserves costs. The ultimate disposition of the appeal itself, and whether any residual discretion to allow the point in truly exceptional circumstances might arise at final hearing, remains open. Practitioners should therefore treat the decision as establishing a strong presumption against new contradictory points while recognising that the statutory appeal machinery and the outer limits of the exception have yet to be fully mapped.