Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
Industrial law - Interim order - Tests to be applied - Balance of
convenience.
Trade Practices Act 1974
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ss. 141(2), 133(1)(f£)
Craven-Ellis v. Canons Ltd. £19363 2 K.B. 403
Beecham Group Limited v. Bristol Laboratories Pty. Limited (1967) 118 C.L.R. 618
Re Evans; Re Hospital Employees Federation of Australia (1984) 8
I.R. 299
Bullock v. The Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia
(No. 1) (1985) 5 F.C.R. 464
JAMES PATRICK HUGHES v. JOHN DUNNERY & ORS. S.A. No. 5 of 1986 , GRAY J.
ADELAIDE
26TH MAY 1986
iFEOIE "WL. COURT OF EMETP ALIA PPUNCI Pec
a eeeey
Yee,
oh as me
oe
=F , et
caanehheshduememnariae nalirian
~
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
oo )
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) S.A. No. 5 of 1986 )
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:
JAMES PATRICK HUGHES
Applicant AND
JOHN DUNNERY, JIM DOYLE, KEVIN JOHN TINSON, ALAN STANLEY BEGG, ALAN JAMES BLANE, JOHN RAJAN THOMAS,
MARK GRAHAM ROACH, ARTHUR RICH AND WILLIAM HARRIS
Respondents
JUDGE: GRAY J. DATE: 26TH MAY 1986
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 16th May 1986, the branch executive of the South Australian branch of the Australian Workers' Union resolved to "immediately appoint an additional organiser with particular reference to coverage of Roxby Downs." The branch executive then proceeded to conduct a kind of election for the filling of that position. Two nominations were received, one of which was' the respondent John Rajan Thomas. Mr. Thomas was appointed by the
branch executive by a 4 to 3 majority.
slp orecn
sew eee Ae ' oO
a
-2-
On 22nd May 1986, the applicant obtained a rule to show cause, calling upon the members of the branch executive to perform and observe the rules of the Australian Workers' Union, firstly by refraining from taking any action to implement that resolution, and secondly by treating the resolution as null and void. The application is made pursuant to s. 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. What is presently before me is an application pursuant to sub-s. (2) of that section for an interim order, pending the trial of the proceeding. In substance, the applicant seeks, pending the trial, an order that the respondents refrain from taking any action to implement the resolution, and treat it as null and void.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate