Littles Gippsland Coaches Pty Ltd v Transport Regulation Board & Ors [1977] FCA 5

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA V.6 No. 42 of 1977

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

LITTLE'S GIPPSLAND COACHES PTY. LTD. Plaintiff and @ TRANSPORT REGULATION BOARD, ALAN VOLENS CARTWRIGHT Defendants COOK, JAMES OLIVER MACTIER, PETER HOCKING, TRARALGON

BUS LINES LIMITED, MORWELL BUS LINES LIMITED, LATROBE VALLEY BUS LINES, ARNOLD CARLYLE TILLOTSON, THOMAS HARRY FURLONGER and CECIL ERNEST STAMMERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NORTHROP J.

@ 27TH MAY 1977

LITTLE'S GIPPSLAND COACHES PTY. LTD, Plaintiff and

TRANSPORT REGULATION BOARD and OTHERS Defendants

HIS HONOUR: This is the return of a summons taken out by the Plaintiff, directed to the first four defendants, seeking interim or interlocutory injunctions restraining them from continuing with the hearing of certain proceedings under the Transport Regulation Act, pending the hearing and determin- ation of the matters raised by this writ.

The first defendant is the Transport Regulation Board, which is incorporated and is a corporation by reason of the Transport Regulation Act 1958, s.4. The second, third and fourth defendants are members of the Transport Regulation Board - reference may be made to s,.5 of the Transport Regulation Act for these purposes.

It is important to stress that this is an inter- locutory matter, and it is undesirable for me to express any final view on the matters which have been raised. In coming to my conclusion, I shall apply the principles referred to py Mr. Justice Menhennitt in the case of Gabriel v. Lobban (1976) VR.689 at 690, where His Honour, quoting from the High Court decision of Beecham Group Limited v. Bristol Laboratories

Pty. Limited 118 C.L.R. 618 at 622 said -

"The Court addresses itself in all cases, patent as well as other, to two main inquiries. The first is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is a probability that at the trial of the action the plaintiff will be held entitled to relief," Then two authorities are cited in support of that. Later, at p.623, the Court said: "The second inquiry is directed to this aspect of the matter. It is whether the inconvenience or injury which the plaintiff would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or 1S outweighed by the injury which the defendant would suffer if an injunction were granted."