Burgess, Paul John v John Connell-Mott, Hay & Anderson Pty Ltd [1979] FCA 73

"™

CATCH WORDS

{nudustrial law - criminal proceedings - order dismissing anformation after hearing on the merits - jurisdiction of Full Court to hear anpeal. Conciliation and Arbitration Act

1904 ss.5,104,113,114,115,118B,119C. Federal Caurt of Anstvelza

Act 1976 ss.4, 20(1), 24(1), 28(1).

.

Paul John Burgess v. John Connell—Mott, Hay and Anderson

Pty. Ltd.

V No. 15 of 1979

Coram: Smithers, Evatt and Keely Jd. Melbourne

24 July 1979.

TNDUS REAL

ni VISION

VICTO

YT Oy as

IRIn DICTH

we ew=a Q . o I i) In my vay ~] 0)

REGISTRY

BET YW = ER: PAUL JOUN BURGESS 'Appellant A Bb: JOAN CONNELL-NMOTT HAY and AIM!RSoy Pry. iD) Respondent ORDLR JUDGES MAKSIC ORDER: Smithers, Evatt und Keely JJ.

OF ORDER:

WRERE MAN. :

The Court ord

1.

The apncal

Melbourne

be dismissed.

IN THE FeDERAT, COURT OF AUSTHALTA

) ) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION ) V No. 15 of 1979 ) }

PETREEN: PAUL JOHN BURGESS

Appellant

AND: JOHN CONNELI-NOTT

HAY and ANDERSON

Pry. ITD,

. Respondent

Smithers, Evatt and Keely a),

24 July 1979

REASONS FAR TUDGFOUT

Smivhers J: Im this matler an appesl has been inslituted under

s.2h (1)(a) of the Fecersl Court of Austrelia Act 1976 wherein:

the appellany purports to appeal from ea judzment of c single

gudge of this Court sitting in the Ircustrial Division. By that

tre appellant égsrinst t

=

1€

¥

judgement an irtormation laid by

respondent for alleged breaches of s.5(1) of tu2 Concilzaticon

and Arvitretion Act 1°04 was dismissed.

The information alleged thet tre respondent had dismiss2a tne eppellant from nis enployment ty reason of the circurstance hat the appellant was é member of the Australien Workers! Union end of other circumetances specified in s.5(1)(2)

(b), Cd) and (£) of Lhe Conerlie tion ard Arbitration Act

In the course of the cenduct of tbe prosecution the appellant called

¢

evidence of facts and circumstances alleged by him to constitute the elements of the ullesed offencc. nereayster counsel for the appellant armoujced "I heave not i:ntenced to call any further witnesses. That 1s our case", Counsel for the respondent thereupon submitted that on the evidence called by the appellant the elements of the offence had not been proved and that the tunfor- mation sheuld be disizssed on tre rround that there was no case to answer. Mo point was made tnat the evidence was or might be insuf- ficient to prove that the reason for the rceepondent's action in dismissing the appellant was the circumstance that the appellant was a& nember of the A.W.U. or one of the other circunstances specified in $.5(.3)€e),(P)(a) of (7). No doubt this was beceuse