Longin v Murphy's Lawyers Inc [2006] NSWIRComm 84

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Longin v Murphy's Lawyers Inc [2006] NSWIRComm 84

APPLICANT Katica Longin PARTIES: RESPONDENT Murphy's Lawyers Inc

FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 5687 of 2005

CORAM: Staff J

Practice and procedure - Unfair dismissal application - Failure by respondents to comply with directions - Application by applicant for re-listing and variation of directions - Practice Direction 17 - Discretion to exclude evidence if failure to comply with directions - Application declined CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal application - Failure by respondents to comply with directions - Application by applicant for re-listing and variation of directions - Practice Direction 17 - Discretion to exclude evidence if failure to comply with directions - Application declined

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: No legal representation - Decision in Chambers

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CORAM: Staff J

9 March 2006

Matter No IRC 5687 of 2005

KATICA LONGIN v MURPHY'S LAWYERS INC

Application by Katica Longin pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 re unfair dismissal

DECISION

1 This matter has been referred to a presidential member of the Commission pursuant to Practice Direction 17 of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales to consider an application by the solicitors for the applicant to have the matter re-listed for directions. 2 I have decided to deal with this application in Chambers. 3 The history of the matter is that on 7 November 2005, Katica Longin ("the applicant") filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal. 4 A conciliation occurred before Commissioner Cambridge on 28 November 2005. The conciliation was unsuccessful and directions were made. 5 The applicant filed a witness statement on 30 December 2005. 6 Murphy's Lawyers Inc, the respondent, failed to comply with the directions to file and serve any witness statements by 25 January 2006 and the matter was listed before the Registrar on 31 January 2006 when, by consent, the following directions were made: (i) the directions made by the Commission on 28 November 2005 are discharged; (ii) the respondent is to file and serve all witness statements by 4.00 pm on 3 February 2006; (iii) the applicant is to file and serve all evidence in reply by 4.00 pm on 17 February 2006; (iv) liberty is reserved for either party by way of written request to seek to have the matter re-listed for further conciliation; (v) the matter is to be listed to fix a hearing date on 28 February 2006. 7 This matter was subsequently listed for hearing on 14 March 2006. 8 On 1 March 2006, the solicitors for the applicant wrote to the Industrial Registrar advising that the respondent was in default and seeking to have the matter re-listed for directions. 9 An examination of the file reveals that no steps have been taken by the respondent in accordance with the directions. 10 The purpose of Practice Direction 17 is to facilitate the just, quick and cost-effective disposal of unfair dismissal proceedings before the Commission. 11 Any application to vary directions after the conciliation conference must be made in writing and contain full supporting grounds. 12 No steps have been taken by the respondent in accordance with Practice Direction 17 and, in my view, it is therefore not appropriate to amend the directions. 13 It follows that the date for hearing will be retained and if no steps (or late steps) are taken by the respondent to file and serve witness statements, then the Commissioner may properly exercise a discretion to exclude such evidence. 14 The application for an urgent re-listing of the matter is refused. 15 A copy of this decision will be provided to each of the parties.