Full Bench dismisses four interlocutory applications, reiterating the scope of evidence and matters to be considered in appeals

The Full Bench has dismissed four interlocutory applications raised by the appellant in a Full Bench appeal. The Full Bench held that the applications raised evidence and matters not dealt with in the first instance proceedings or were not of relevance to the current proceedings.


In 2019, the appellant brought a claim for a denial of contractual benefits to the Commission, which was dismissed. The appellant commenced an appeal  to the Full Bench.

Prior to the hearing of the Full Bench appeal, the appellant brought four interlocutory applications. The Full Bench listed the applications to be heard.

Interlocutory applications

The substance of the four interlocutory applications, respectively, were that the appellant:

  • Sought to amend his first instance claim before the Commission, to bring in claims for long service leave, sick leave, and superannuation;
  • Sought discovery of documents from the respondent in relation to a range of subject matter, to assist in establishing his grounds of appeal in the appeal proceedings;
  • Sought admissions from the respondent as to the identity of the respondent in the appeal; and
  • Asserted a conflict of interest against the respondent’s solicitors, Lavan, and requested disclosure of costs and expenditure incurred by the respondent and other employing entities, in relation to the appellant’s litigation against them.


The Full Bench noted that under s 49(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), an appeal to the Full Bench is to be heard and determined on the ‘evidence and matters raised’ in the first instance proceedings. The Full Bench reiterated that it is not an opportunity for a party to attempt to reargue their case at first instance; or to seek interlocutory orders to bolster their case on appeal, in relation to matters not dealt with at first instance.

In relation to the first, second and third interlocutory application, the Full Bench outlined that the matters were beyond the scope of matters to be considered by the Full Bench, and that the time to bring such applications was prior to or at the first instance proceedings before the Commission.

In relation to the fourth application, the Full Bench found that it was not a matter relevant to the proceedings before the Full Bench. The interlocutory applications were dismissed.

The decision can be read here.