Quickenden v Federated Australian University Staff Association [1988] FCA 365

JUDGMENT No. #25 7 Sh

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

~~ TS

NO. WA 1 of 1988

BETWEEN: TERENCE IVAN QUICKENDEN Applicant

and

FEDERATED AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY STAFF ASSOCIATION

First Respondent and

JOHN RHYS FOX, RALPH FREDERICK HALL, DIANE ZETLIN, LESLEY RUTH JOHNSON, GARY MICHAEL WICKHAM, JOHN RASPIN PANTER and BRIAN McINNES

Second Respondents

CORAM: FRENCH J. 20 JUNE 1988

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER

In my opinion, for present purposes, the applicant shows an arguable, although not particularly strong, case for the orders that he seeks. The criteria by which I must judge whether or not to grant interlocutory relief are well established: there must be shown a serious question to be tried, and it must be shown that

the balance of convenience favours the applicant for the grant of

relief. _

Those two criteria are not independent. Where the inconvenience that might arise in the absence of interlocutory

relief is substantial, then the strength of the case needed to

justify the grant of that relief may be somewhat less than in a case where the balance of convenience is more evenly disposed. Having regard to the potential importance of the changes' to conditions of academic staff which could be effected as a result of the revisions to the draft agreement, I am of the view that a short term restraint is justified in order to enable both parties to appear before this Court and properly argue either or both the question of the extension of the interlocutory relief and the show

cause order.

It seems to me, however, that the nature of the case is one which requires urgent action on the part of the applicant to notify the respondents of the proceedings in this Court, and he will have to justify to the Court any failure to effect service before an extension of the interlocutory relief will be granted