|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Federal Court of Australia |
Last Updated: 21 February 2006
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Meatpak Pty Ltd trading as Holco Fine Meat Supplies v Moran [2005] FCA 89
MEATPAK
PTY LTD TRADING AS HOLCO FINE MEAT SUPPLIES v BRUCE JAMES MORAN, DARRYL GEORGE
MARSHALL, TERRENCE EDGAR GRIFFIN, GARY CRAIG
LECOUTER, JOSEPH CATALDI, EDWARD
JOHN WILSON & SCOTT ANDREW WHELAN
No S 254 of
2004
FINN J
ADELAIDE
14
FEBRUARY 2005
|
MEATPAK PTY LTD TRADING AS HOLCO FINE MEAT
SUPPLIES
APPELLANT |
|
|
AND:
|
BRUCE JAMES MORAN
FIRST RESPONDENT DARRYL GEORGE MARSHALL SECOND RESPONDENT TERRENCE EDGAR GRIFFIN THIRD RESPONDENT GARY CRAIG LECOUTER FOURTH RESPONDENT JOSEPH CATALDI FIFTH RESPONDENT EDWARD JOHN WILSON SIXTH RESPONDENT SCOTT ANDREW WHELAN SEVENTH RESPONDENT |
|
DATE OF ORDER:
|
|
|
WHERE MADE:
|
THE COURT ORDERS
THAT:
1. The appeal be transferred to
the Queensland District Registry of the Court.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
|
|
S 254 OF 2004
|
|
AND:
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The appeal in this matter is from a judgment of the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia. It lies to the Full Court of this Court by virtue of the provisions of s 422 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
2 The appellant has moved to transfer the appeal proceedings to the Queensland District Registry of the Court. That motion can be heard by a single Judge under the provisions of s 25(2B)(c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). That provision enables me to give directions about the conduct of an appeal to the Court. The power to give directions clearly encompasses the giving of directions in relation to the place of an appeal: cf O 10 r 1(2)(a)(xiii) and O 52A r 13(2)(c)(vii) of the Federal Court Rules.
3 The appeal relates to the construction and application of the Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000. The appellant is a meat wholesaler and retailer. The respondents are persons subject to the award. Though the appellant carried on business in South Australia and though the respondents were employed in South Australia, the application to transfer the proceedings to Queensland proceeds on the basis that the appellant’s principal office is in Queensland, its legal representatives are located in Queensland and the union that represents the respondents has its office in Queensland. The respondents, all of whom are represented by the union, do not oppose the transfer application.
4 The short ground relied upon to justify the transfer is the cost to which all parties will be put if the matter is heard in the South Australia District Registry.
5 The test whether a matter should be transferred is to be answered by asking "where can the case be conducted or continued most suitably bearing in mind the interests of all the parties, the ends of justice in the determination of the matter between them, and the most efficient administration of the Court": National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155 at 162.
6 In this matter the most significant consideration is the interests of the parties. The cost saving to all concerned will be considerable if the transfer is ordered. There is no consideration relating to the ends of justice or the efficient administration of the Court which outweighs that in this instance.
7 Accordingly I will order that this appeal be transferred to the Queensland District Registry of the Court.
Associate:
Dated: 14 February 2005
|
Solicitor for the Appellant:
|
McCullough Robertson Lawyers
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondents:
|
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
|
|
Date of Papers:
|
12 January 2005 & 14 February 2005
|
|
Date of Judgment:
|
14 February 2005
|
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2005/89.html