IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) N.S.W. No.8 of 1984 ) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : JUDITH WALKER Applicant AND: K.H. McLEOD, K.W.DAVERN, J.ANGUS, P. PHILLIPS, I. WEST, J. BOOKER, J. DWYER, M. CLARK, I. LARCOMBE, J. WILSON, R. PURVIS, G. CHRISTIE, J. TROUSDALE, L. ASPINALL, G. DUNCAN, P. ADAMS Respondents ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Beaumont J. WHERE MADE: Sydney DATE: 6 March 1984 HE COURT ORDERS THAT: Fix 26 March 1984 for the final hearing of the proceeding. Direct that the applicant file and serve points of claim on or before 13 March 1984. Direct that the respondents file and serve points of defence on or before 21 March 1984. Upon the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to damages, order, until further order, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the interim orders sought in the Rule to show cause dated 1 March 1984. Reserve liberty to the respondents to apply on 24 hours' notice to vary or discharge the orders made in paragraph 4. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) N.S.W. No.8 of 1984 ) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION } BETWEEN : JUDITH WALKER Applicant AND: K.H. McLEOD, K.W. DAVERN, J. ANGUS, P. PHILLIPS, 1. WEST, J. BOOKER, J. DWYER, M. CLARK, I. LARCOMBE, J. WILSON, R. PURVIS, G. CHRISTIE, J. TROUSDALE, L. ASPINALL, G. DUNCAN, P. ADAMS Respondents CORAM: Beaumont J. 6 March 1984 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for interlocutory injunctive relief made in proceedings seeking orders under s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904, In the principal proceedings, the applicant challenges the validity of certain resolutions purportedly carried by a special general meeting of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Insurance Employees Union. The applicant was, and claims she still is, the secretary of the Branch and an additional delegate of the Branch to the Federal Executive of the Union. The respondents are all members of the Federal Executive. The resolutions now challenged found the applicant guilty of a number of substantial breaches of the rules of the Union and guilty of "gross misbehaviour" in a number of respects and then dismissed her from the two offices mentioned. The applicant claims interim relief restraining the respondents from acting on the resolutions now impugned pending the final hearing of the principal proceedings. That hearing is fixed to commence on 26 March 1984. The applicant puts her case in a number of ways but, in the circumstances, I need deal with one only of the arguments advanced. In her principal affidavit, upon which she was not cross-examined, the applicant conceded that, shortly after 9 January 1984, she was given written notice of the terms of the resolutions proposed to be put at the meeting to be held on 24 February. She also said that at the meeting, there was distributed to each person present a lengthy booklet entitled "Motions and Exhibits". The booklet, as its title suggests, contained the motions proposed and copies of the documentary material relied on in support of the resolutions intended to be put. Although it would take some time to read the material which was considerable in volume, the applicant was given a copy of the booklet only "shortly prior" to the commencement of the meeting. The applicant says that, in the circumstances, she was not afforded sufficient time in which to prepare her defence, given the lateness of delivery and size of the material used against her. She submits that the rules of natural justice were not observed in this respect (see Evan v Harradine £1975] 25 F.L.R. 336 at p.343). In my opinion, there is a serious question to be tried in this regard (see Australian Coarse Grain Pool Pty. Ltd. v Barley Marketing Board of Queensland £19827 46 A.L.R. 398). In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the other arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant. On the balance of convenience, prima facie at least, the status quo should be preserved. However, the respondents submit that, by reason of the serious nature of the charges made against the applicant, it is inappropriate that she continue to occupy the offices from which she has now been dismissed. There is force in the submission but I think that, in the main, it is met by expediting the final hearing, which I have now done. At the same time, it is appropriate that liberty be preserved to the respondents to apply on short notice to discharge the injunction I propose to grant should they be advised that such an application is necessary to protect the interests of the Union. | cerfify that this andthe 2 preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for jv9g ment herein of The Honourable .*.us.ce Beaumont. S. oy, Associate ued 6 March, \?8F-