Section 394(1) is a procedural provision identifying who may make an application, similar to provisions establishing standing, and does not go to the jurisdiction of the Commission to grant an unfair dismissal remedy.

In considering whether to waive an irregularity under s.586(b) for premature filing, relevant factors include whether respondent has suffered prejudice, whether there is an arguable case on merits, whether significant injustice would flow from dismissal of the application, and whether requiring re-filing would cause inconvenience and cost.

Where jurisdiction of a federal court depends on a constitutional fact (such as whether a corporation is a trading corporation under s51(xx.)), and the statute provides for appeal to the High Court, the Federal Court is not deprived of jurisdiction to determine that constitutional question, and its decision is subject to review but not prohibition.

Where Parliament confers on a court jurisdiction that depends on constitutional legislative power, and creates a condition precedent to jurisdiction (such as the existence of a trading corporation), the court cannot conclusively determine that condition if doing so would exceed constitutional power; the High Court alone can conclusively determine constitutional facts.

If an administrative tribunal falls into an error of law which causes it to identify a wrong issue, ask itself a wrong question, ignore relevant material, rely on irrelevant material or make an erroneous finding, and the tribunal's exercise of power is thereby affected, it exceeds its authority or powers and commits jurisdictional error

Where questions of jurisdiction are involved, it is the facts which are relevant, not the parties' subjective beliefs or the reasonableness of their conduct.

Where questions of jurisdiction are involved, it is the facts which are relevant, not the parties' subjective beliefs or the reasonableness of their conduct.

In determining jurisdictional questions, the relevant facts are what matter, not the parties' subjective beliefs or the reasonableness of their conduct.

An appeal under s 90(1)(b) cannot be made on the ground that there has been an error in the construction or interpretation of the Act where the Full Bench has merely applied law which it has correctly understood to the facts of an individual case. It is for the Full Bench to weigh the relevant facts in the light of applicable law, and such fact-finding does not enliven appellate jurisdiction.

Compliance with s 180(5) is not a jurisdictional fact. The relevant jurisdictional fact is the Commission's satisfaction under s 188(a)(i) that the employer has complied with s 180(5). However, where a statute conditions exercise of power on formation of satisfaction, the satisfaction must be reached by a rational, reasonable and logical process, considering all relevant matters.

The language of 'satisfaction' or 'opinion' in a statute is a device to ensure that matters identified as preconditions to the exercise of power are not jurisdictional facts, but facts which need only be established to the satisfaction of the decision-maker.

Section 29(1) of the IR Act confers standing to refer an industrial matter to the Commission but does not confer jurisdiction or additional powers on the Commission, nor does it prescribe principles of law to be applied in determining the matter.