C2002/52, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 1204 (9 April 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 2, 16 St George's Tce, PERTH WA 6000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N WT04566

A: 9.4.02

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

DEPUTY PRESIDENT McCARTHY

C2002/52

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE ACT
BY CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY,
WESTERN AUSTRALIA AGAINST THE DECISION
AND ORDER OF COMMISSIONER LARKIN ON
13 MARCH 2002 IN U2001/2806

PERTH

3.04 PM, FRIDAY, 22 MARCH 2002

PN1

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, Ms Brown.

PN2

MS BROWN: Good afternoon, sir.

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are appearing for Curtin University?

PN4

MS BROWN: I am, sir, yes. There will be no appearance for the respondent. I have been in contact with Mr Rosales this afternoon and it being a consent application, he was content not to appear.

PN5

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN6

MS BROWN: The appellant seeks the orders as asked in the consent minute filed on 20 March.

PN7

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I am probably actually being over-cautious in listing that but I thought I should list it just for the sake of the record. So, given that the stay application is by consent, I shall issue it immediately. I have, in the meantime, had a communication from Munro J as to the proceedings and directions that he intended to issue in terms of the proceedings. The dates, they are currently scheduled for the Ryder appeal, I know, which is not this one, on 17 and 18 April if needed and then this one on the 18 and 19th if needed. Further, Munro J has - and I will give you a copy of this but for the purposes of the transcript, I think I will read it in. Has indicated that these directions will issue:

PN8

Point 1: The appellant, Curtin University of Technology is to lodged with the Commission, serve on the respondent, written submissions in support of the appeal, giving the Commission three copies of the documents by close of business 26 March 2002. The submission should set out in full the arguments upon which the appellant relies.

PN9

2: The respondent, E. Tapping, is to lodge with the Commission and serve on the appellant written submissions in opposition to the appeal, giving the Commission three copies of the document by 12 April 2002. The submission should set out in full the arguments to be relied upon.

PN10

3: These directions require the filing of written submissions not outlines of submissions. A default of these directions, should any party fail to comply with the requirements set out, may result in the appeal being struck out at the hearing for want of prosecution or the appeal being allowed without further hearing.

PN11

4: The matter is listed with matter 2002/25 for hearing on 17 and 18 April 2002 on the basis that the Full Bench will determine at the outset of that hearing whether to hear both matters concurrently on common transcript. Should the Full Bench not determine to hear the matters concurrently, matter 2002/52 will be heard immediately. Following completion of the matter, 2002/25. Should further hearing time be essential, the Bench will reserve 19 April 2002 also for that purpose. However, the parties will be expected to complete presentation of argument within the time that will be allotted on 18 April 2002. The hearing time is for the purpose of short oral argument only.

PN12

Point 5: Each party shall provide the Full Bench on the day of the hearing with three copies of any authority which the party intends to refer.

PN13

End of the directions. Also been requested to invite you, if you have cause why those directions should not issue, that you would need to show cause to Munro J by mid-day, 26 March 2002, why a direction should not be made in those terms proposed. Now, I have got a copy of that which will be provided to you. What I would also request of you, Ms Brown, that you convey the proposed directions to Mr Rosales and the content of the - if he has objections to those directions, the necessity to show cause by 26 March.

PN14

MS BROWN: Indeed, sir. We are content with those orders but it may be that Mr Rosales would want - so what was the deadline for 26 March for showing cause why the order should not issue? Was it midday, sir, or close of business?

PN15

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. By midday, 26 March. Yes, that would be midday Perth time.

PN16

MS BROWN: Perth time. Yes, I was going to ask.

PN17

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay?

PN18

MS BROWN: Thank you, sir.

PN19

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, well, thank you. Given that, that stay order will issue and I wanted to get it issued today if at all possible, given the timing of it. This matter is, therefore, adjourned. Thanks, Ms Brown.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.09pm]