Matthew Valentine De Pledge v Moulding Industries Pty Ltd

Document Type: Decision

Matter Number: APPL 1910/2003

Matter Description: Order s.29(1)(b)(i)&(ii) Combination 1&2

Industry: Business Services

Jurisdiction: Single Commissioner

Member/Magistrate name: Commissioner P E Scott

Delivery Date: 14 Apr 2004

Result:

Citation: 2004 WAIRC 11157

WAIG Reference: 84 WAIG 1195

DOC | 35kB
2004 WAIRC 11157
100422313

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

PARTIES MATTHEW VALENTINE DE PLEDGE
APPLICANT
-V-

MOULDING INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
RESPONDENT
CORAM COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT
DATE OF ORDER WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2004
FILE NO APPLICATION 1910 OF 2003
CITATION NO. 2004 WAIRC 11157

_______________________________________________________________________________
Catchwords Application for stay of proceedings pending finalisation of matter before the Supreme Court  Matters before the Commission and the Supreme Court are significantly interrelated  Inappropriate for the Commission to proceed while matter before the Supreme Court
Result Application for stay in proceedings granted
Representation
APPLICANT MR K TRAINER (AS AGENT)

RESPONDENT MR A QUAHE (OF COUNSEL)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Reasons for Decision
(Given extemporaneously and edited by the Commissioner)

1 This is an application to stay this matter pending Supreme Court proceedings involving the parties. The matter before the Commission is a claim of unfair dismissal and denied contractual benefits. The matter before the Supreme Court appears on its face to relate to the applicant in his capacity as a director but covers ground which would appear to arise in respect of the application before the Commission and in circumstances which are covered by the same situation.
2 It appears to me that the matters before the Supreme Court and the Commission are interrelated in significant ways, such that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed for the purpose of dealing with the claim of unfair dismissal and denied contractual benefits in isolation. The Supreme Court matter covers broader ground, and this Commission would not be able to deal with the entirety of the matter. It would be costly and inconvenient to proceed with this matter while the other matters proceed before the Supreme Court.
3 I intend to grant the application, however I do not intend to do so on an indefinite basis but rather in the circumstances of the point at which the Supreme Court matter has proceeded. I intend to grant the application subject to the matter being listed before me for mention in 3 months. I shall hear from the parties at that point as to further progress.
Matthew Valentine De Pledge v Moulding Industries Pty Ltd

100422313

 

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

PARTIES MATTHEW VALENTINE DE PLEDGE

APPLICANT

 -v-

 

 MOULDING INDUSTRIES PTY LTD

RESPONDENT

CORAM COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT

DATE OF ORDER WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2004

FILE NO APPLICATION 1910 OF 2003

CITATION NO. 2004 WAIRC 11157

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Catchwords Application for stay of proceedings pending finalisation of matter before the Supreme Court Matters before the Commission and the Supreme Court are significantly interrelated  Inappropriate for the Commission to proceed while matter before the Supreme Court

Result Application for stay in proceedings granted

Representation

Applicant Mr K Trainer (as agent)

 

Respondent Mr A Quahe (of counsel)

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

Reasons for Decision

(Given extemporaneously and edited by the Commissioner)

 

1         This is an application to stay this matter pending Supreme Court proceedings involving the parties.  The matter before the Commission is a claim of unfair dismissal and denied contractual benefits.  The matter before the Supreme Court appears on its face to relate to the applicant in his capacity as a director but covers ground which would appear to arise in respect of the application before the Commission and in circumstances which are covered by the same situation.

2         It appears to me that the matters before the Supreme Court and the Commission are interrelated in significant ways, such that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed for the purpose of dealing with the claim of unfair dismissal and denied contractual benefits in isolation.  The Supreme Court matter covers broader ground, and this Commission would not be able to deal with the entirety of the matter.  It would be costly and inconvenient to proceed with this matter while the other matters proceed before the Supreme Court.

3         I intend to grant the application, however I do not intend to do so on an indefinite basis but rather in the circumstances of the point at which the Supreme Court matter has proceeded.  I intend to grant the application subject to the matter being listed before me for mention in 3 months.  I shall hear from the parties at that point as to further progress.