Aurizon Operations Limited v Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union NSW Branch; The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator v Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union NSW Branch [2024] NSWCA 24

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Aurizon Operations Limited v Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union NSW Branch; The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator v Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union NSW Branch [2024] NSWCA 24 Hearing dates: 6 February 2024 Decision date: 16 February 2024 Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1]; Adamson JA at [2]; Griffiths AJA at [87] Decision: (1) Grant leave to the first respondent to amend its notice of contention in accordance with the draft amended notice of contention referred to in paragraph 1 of the orders sought in the notice of motion filed on 28 November 2023. (2) Allow the appeal. (3) Allow the cross-appeal. (4) Set aside the orders made by Walton J on 11 May 2023 and, in lieu thereof, make the following orders: (a) Dismiss the amended summons filed on 23 June 2022. (b) Order the plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs. (5) Order the first respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. (6) Make no order as to the costs of the cross-appeal. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW –– jurisdictional error –– decision of National Rail Safety Regulator to grant application to vary rail operator's accreditation under the Rail Safety National Law (NSW) –– whether decision maker erred in construing the consultation requirements in s 99(3)(a)(iii) of the Rail Safety National Law –– whether primary judge erred in declaring the decision maker's decision invalid ADMINISTRATIVE LAW –– jurisdictional error –– decision of National Rail Safety Regulator to grant application to vary rail operator's accreditation under the Rail Safety National Law (NSW) –– whether decision maker misunderstood the nature of the opinion required to be formed under ss 99(3)(a)(i) and 99(3)(a)(iii) of the Rail Safety National Law –– whether decision maker misapprehended nature of opinion required to be formed under ss 65(c)(iii) and 69(1)(a) of the Rail Safety National Law –– whether decision maker's decision is invalid CIVIL PROCEDURE –– Court of Appeal –– leave to amend Notice of Contention –– whether respondent's amendment prejudices the appellant –– whether respondent can raise new points on appeal –– leave to amend granted –– respondent constrained by evidence adduced at first instance COURTS AND JUDGES –– judges –– duty to accord procedural fairness –– obligation to decide the case on the bases argued STATUTORY INTERPRETATION –– Rail Safety National Law (NSW) –– meaning of s 99(3)(a)(i) –– whether primary judge erred in declaring s 99(3)(a)(i) a deeming provision –– consideration of the text, context and legislative purpose of s 99(3)(a)(i) –– effect of phrase "persons likely to be affected" STATUTORY INTERPRETATION –– Rail Safety National Law (NSW) –– meaning of s 99(3)(a)(iii) –– whether the term "representing" means "entitled to represent" –– consideration of the text, context and legislative purpose of s 99(3)(a)(iii) Legislation Cited: Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), s 19 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), s 218 Rail Safety National Law (NSW), ss 3, 4, 5, 24, 30, 46, 50, 52, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 99, 101, 102, 104, 216, 249, 263, 264, Sch 2 (cl 7) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1, 59.9 Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41 Ali v Minister for Home Affairs (2020) 278 FCR 627; [2020] FCAFC 109 Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138; [2007] HCA 47 Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville (1988) 164 CLR 234; [1988] HCA 5 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6 Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director-General of Security (2012) 251 CLR 1; [2012] HCA 46 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Miller [2013] NSWCA 442; (2013) 67 MVR 322 Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423; [2006] HCA 36 The Queen v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407; [1944] HCA 42 Vanmeld Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2000] NSWCA 51; (2000) 106 LGERA 454 Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 18 October 2012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aurizon Operations Limited (Appellant) Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union NSW Branch (First Respondent) The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (Second Respondent/Cross Appellant) Representation: Counsel: I Taylor SC / M Pulsford (Appellant) M Gibian SC / P Boncardo (First Respondent) J Phillips SC (Second Respondent/Cross Appellant)