Barnes, R.W. v Australian Telecommunications Commission & Ors [1987] FCA 497

r "Wee few Kt"

| JUDGMENT No. AFL nn

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G158 of 1987 ' GENERAL DIVISION . )

BETWEEN: ROBERT WALTER BARNES

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

First Respondent

DOUGLAS W. SMITH

é

Second Respondent

AND: ALLAN MUIR Third Respondent

AND: PETER REILLY

Fourth Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. ? DATE OF ORDER: 20 AUGUST 198 P 1987 FED WHERE MADE: BRISBANE "AUSTRAL AY OF

PRINCIPA| REGISTRY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for a stay be dismissed.

2. Costs of the application be costs in the proceedings.

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

z i

Ree pee ene ee re . PSUS NTT :

psy

rey rene ee ee I ee pe en = ee os Tee ak " 2 oe .

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G1i58 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: ROBERT WALTER BARNES

Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

First Respondent

AND: DOUGLAS W. SMITH

Second Respondent

AND: ALLAN MUIR Third Respondent

AND: PETER REILLY Fourth Respondent

PINCUS J. 20 August 1987

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a difficult matter but I have been assisted by submissions which have clarified my mind. I was initially uncertain how to approach it, but I think that the contentions which have been made have resolved the issue to my satisfaction, so, although I would have preferred to write amore elaborate

judgment, it seems to me desirable that I give judgment now.

The application is made for a stay in proceedings

brought under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act

—

eu 1975-1983. The applicant was until recently a watchman employed by the first respondent, the Australian Telecommunications Commission. I call him a watchman, although his designation was actually Assistant Grade 2, and he was employed as a Security Assistant. He was charged in July last year in relation to events which occurred in May of that year. The charges were, in substance, absenting himself from or not reporting for duty. It is unnecessary for the purposes of these reasons to set out the provisions of the relevant statute under which he was charged, the