The Industrial Court held that it possesses an implied power to permit non-party intervention in appeal proceedings, derived from the necessity for the Court to act effectively within its statutory jurisdiction and in accordance with natural justice, but that a non-party must demonstrate a substantial affection of legal interests — the mere prospect that a decision may be applied in future unspecified litigation or have extra-curial industrial consequences does not suffice under the Levy v Victoria framework. The Court drew a clear distinction between the broad powers available to the Commission in its arbitral functions and the formal procedures applicable when exercising judicial functions, holding that the basis for intervention in arbitral proceedings cannot be conflated with intervention in judicial proceedings. While refusing the HSU's application to intervene as a party, the Court granted leave for it to make limited written submissions as amicus curiae on specific questions of award construction where its anticipated arguments appeared materially different from those advanced by the existing parties.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.