CASE PROCEDURES – stay order – civil penalty privilege – ss.394, 589 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for stay in part of application for unfair dismissal remedy – respondent sought to have application stayed in part pending hearing and determination of general protections matter filed by applicant in Federal Court – respondent submitted there were similar facts and circumstances in both matters, which posed risk of inconsistent findings of fact and law in respect of same issues – further submitted that people & culture manager would be able to lawfully refuse to give evidence on basis of civil penalty privilege – Commission considered privilege against self-incrimination and noted that its applicability to Commission proceedings in relation to civil penalty provisions remained unclear without binding authority – prepared to adopt position that privilege against exposure to civil penalties should apply to Commission’s formal proceedings – in considering whether stay application should be granted, referred to principles in McMahon v Gould – Commission not satisfied respondent demonstrated real risk of injustice sufficient to deny applicant right to hearing in ordinary course – applicant’s right to prompt hearing of claim should not lightly be interfered with – applicant entitled to have application heard and determined as soon as practicable – staying unfair dismissal application in part may increase possibility of achieving perfect justice in evidentiary sense for respondent in Federal Court matter, but would involve potential of further delay in final disposition of application before Commission – Commission held there was no right for a stay in part or in whole of unfair dismissal proceedings – stay application dismissed – matter to be listed for directions and hearing. French v The Good Guys Discount Warehouse (Australia) P/L t/a Good Guys O’Connor
…
