Batterham v QSR Limited [2006] HCA 23

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

PETER JAMES BATTERHAM & ANOR APPELLANTS

AND

QSR LIMITED & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Batterham v QSR Limited [2006] HCA 23

18 May 2006

S207/2005

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation:

R C Kenzie QC with M J Kimber SC for the appellants (instructed by Turner Freeman)

D E Grieve QC with J M Miller for the first respondent (instructed by Pryor Tzannes & Wallis)

Submitting appearance for the second respondent

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Batterham v QSR Limited

Industrial law (NSW) – Industrial Relations Commission – Jurisdiction – Power given to the Commission by s 106(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) to declare wholly or partly void, or to vary, any contract whereby a person performs work in any industry if the contract is an unfair contract – Option to acquire shares in company pursuant to an option deed – Option deed made as part reward to option holder as promoter of company – Application to Commission for orders declaring the option deed unfair, harsh, and unconscionable and contrary to the public interest, and orders varying the deed – Whether the option deed was a contract or arrangement according to which the first appellant performed work in any industry – Relevance of the fact that the work performed pre-dated the option deed.

Industrial law (NSW) – Industrial Relations Commission – Writ of prohibition sought to restrain the Commission from exercising jurisdiction – Entitlement of the Commission to determine its own jurisdiction in first instance.

Prerogative writs – Prohibition – Excess of jurisdiction – Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) – Whether writ lies in the circumstances – Commission in Court Session a superior court of record of limited jurisdiction equivalent in status to the Supreme Court – Whether application for prohibition premature –Likelihood or danger of order being made in excess of jurisdiction – Relevance of privative provision purporting to exclude issue of writ – Relevance of specialist subject-matter of disputes before the Commission.