Federal Court of Australia
NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. Q 13 of 1985
were vw
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
BERNADETTE CALLAGHAN and OTHERS
AND:
FEDERATED CLERKS UNION OF AUSTRALIA and OTHERS
5 NOVEMBER, 1986 KEELY J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ~- REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT) [s
I have approached the determination of this motion on
the basis that the applicable principles are those relating
to the granting of interlocutory injunctions. The relevant
authorities were cited by Mason A.C.J. in Castlemaine i
Toohevs Limited and Gthers v The State of South Australia
(unreported - published 3 October 1986).
In deciding the matter I have assumed that there is a
serious question to be tried in the substantive proceedings which were described by the applicants' counsel- as being
complex. I have also assumed in the applicants favour that,
un the absence of the orders sought, the Nationa
will exclude from i1ts meeting the representati
RECENED * 4 4NOV1986
DERAL COURT OF Fe AUSTRALIA
re aN PRINCIPAL Ny. REGISTAY aan NX.
Central and Southern Queensland branch (the bran¢h
wa ee
woes
nae poe
It will not be known until judgment is given in the substantive proceedings whether such conduct by the respondents would constitute a failure to perform or observe the relevant rules. It is necessary therefore to consider (1) where the balance of convenience lies, and (2) whether
there is any countervailing reason why the orders sought
should not be made.
As to the balance of convenience, 1t is not easy, on the material before the court, to predict and compare the likely effects upon the respondents and the applicants,
respectively, of the making of the orders sought on the one hand or of the refusal to make such orders on the other. As
the respondents' counsel said, it is difficult to decide in advance what will be the effect, upon the validity of resolutions carried by the National Council, if the branch's representatives are permitted to attend and to vote and it is later decided that they were not entitled to be present. Consideration of that question at the present time necessarily has to be made without having detailed
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