Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Valley Power Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 17
INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for interlocutory injunction – subsequent return to work – whether application should be adjourned or dismissed VALLEY POWER PTY LTD v AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION & ORS NO V 25 OF 2002 HEEREY J 16 JANUARY 2002 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 25 OF 2002
BETWEEN: VALLEY POWER PTY LTD
APPLICANT
AND: AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION ("AMWU")
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION ("AWU")
SECOND RESPONDENT
PETER RAYNER
THIRD RESPONDENT
GEORGE MERCER
FOURTH RESPONDENT
GEORGE TSOKOS
FIFTH RESPONDENT
MERVYN LOWE
SIXTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER: 16 JANUARY 2002
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed
2. The directions hearing be adjourned to a date to be fixed before a judge of the Industrial Panel.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 25 OF 2002
BETWEEN: VALLEY POWER PTY LTD
APPLICANT
AND: AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION ("AMWU")
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION ("AWU")
SECOND RESPONDENT
PETER RAYNER
THIRD RESPONDENT
GEORGE MERCER
FOURTH RESPONDENT
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