Kingham v Sutton (No 2) [2001] FCA 400

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kingham v Sutton (No 2) [2001] FCA 400

INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for interlocutory relief pending hearing and determination of rule to show cause – whether interlocutory relief should be granted restraining respondents from giving effect to resolution fixing date for Divisional Conference – whether interlocutory relief should be granted restraining respondents from taking steps to have rule amendments certified by Industrial Registrar – whether interlocutory relief should be granted restraining Industrial Registrar from taking steps to certify rule amendments – whether Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against Industrial Registrar – whether serious question to be tried – whether balance of convenience in favour of grant of interlocutory relief.

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth): s 195(1), s 205, ss 209(1), (4) & (9) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): s 39B(1) & (2) Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth): s 139, s 141

Patrick Stevedores Operations (No 2) Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1 applied Municipal Offices' Association of Australia v Lancaster (1981) 54 FLR 129 applied Scott v Jess (1984) 3 FCR 263 referred to Allen v Sideris (1984) 3 FCR 549 applied Darroch v Tanner (1987) 16 FCR 368 applied Re Food Preservers' Union of Australia (1988) 79 ALR 138 referred to Krantz v Maynes (1967) 10 FLR 134 considered Bogar v Campbell (1995) 59 IR 243 considered MARTIN KINGHAM & ORS v JOHN SUTTON & ORS (No 2) V 214 of 2001 GOLDBERG J 12 APRIL 2001 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 214 of 2001

BETWEEN: MARTIN KINGHAM, MARTIN O'MALLEY, KEVIN REYNOLDS and GREG SIMCOE

Applicants

AND: JOHN SUTTON, VIC FITZGERALD, ALBERT LITTLER, BILL OLIVER, LINDSAY FRASER, ALEX BUKARICA, PETER McCLELLAND, TREVOR ZELTNER, PAUL WATERS, ANDREW FERGUSON, WALLY TROHEAR, GARRY HOWCROFT, TONY BENSON, BEN CARSLAKE, JOE McDONALD, GEORGE WASON and TREVOR MELKSHAM