MATKEVICH v NEW SOUTH WALES TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION COMMISSION [No 2] [1995] NSWCA 279

MATKEVICH v NEW SOUTH WALES TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION COMMISSION [No 2]

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KirBy P, POWELL and COLE JJA 17 November 1995, 17 November 1995 [1995] NSWCA 279

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — appeal — from GREAT Tribunal — preliminary decision — question of law — whether appeal premature — whether should follow hearing on merits — held (by maj): Appeal not premature — entitlement in law to appeal from interlocutory decisions — no requirement of leave — convenience and legal entitlement require hearing of appeal.

Clisdell vy Commissioner of Police (1982) 31 NSWLR 555 (CA), appld; Ramton v Cassin, CA(NSW), unrpd 25.9.95 [1995] NSWJB 136, distd.

INDUSTRIAL LAW - GREAT Tribunal interlocutory decision - appeal to Court of Appeal whether should be postponed pendiNg hearing on merits - whether adjournment would deprive appellant of appeal points - held (by maj): Adjournment refused.

WORDS AND PHRASES - "decision on a question of law"

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - appeal - Court of Appeal - appeal from Government and Related Employees' Appeal Tribunal - interlocutory decision of Tribunal - appeal on question of law - whether lies - whether premature - whether should be adjourned until after determination by Tribunal of appeal on the merits - held: (Kirby P and Powell JA; Cole JA dissenting) As the appeal lay by law, without leave, from an interlocutory decision of the Government and Related Employees' Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal should hear the appeal and not adjourn the hearing until after a hearing of the appeal to the Tribunal on the merits.

Clisdell v Commissioner of Police (1993) 31 NSWLR 555 (CA), applied; Smith v Allen (1993) 31 NSWLR 52 (CA), considered; Ramton v Cassin, CA(NSW), unreported, 25 September 1995; [1995] NSWJB 136, distinguished.