Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gray v Tighe [2012] FCA 684 Citation: Gray v Tighe [2012] FCA 684
Parties: TROY GRAY v PETER TIGHE, NICOLE WELLS, PETER SIMPSON, JIM MCFADYEN, CHRIS MCGAW and BOB DONNELLY
File number: NSD 834 of 2012
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 28 June 2012
Legislation: Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) s 142(1)(c)
Cases cited: Gray v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union [2012] FCA 380
Date of hearing: 19 June 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Hatcher SC with Mr A Slevin
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr W Friend SC with Mr C Dowling
Solicitor for the Respondents: Hill Payne Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 834 of 2012
BETWEEN: TROY GRAY
Applicant
AND: PETER TIGHE
First Respondent
NICOLE WELLS
Second Respondent
PETER SIMPSON
Third Respondent
JIM MCFADYEN
Fourth Respondent
CHRIS MCGAW
Fifth Respondent
BOB DONNELLY
Sixth Respondent
JUDGE: NICHOLAS J DATE OF ORDER: 28 june 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant's interlocutory application is dismissed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 834 of 2012
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