Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Rugg v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Finance [2023] FCA 179 File number: VID 44 of 2023
Judgment of: MORTIMER J
Date of judgment: 7 March 2023
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – interlocutory application to restrain termination – alleged adverse action – alleged contraventions of workplace rights – alleged constructive dismissal – whether there is a serious question to be tried – whether balance of convenience favours grant of interlocutory relief – application refused
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 44(1), 62, 340, 342, 361, 386, 545 Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth) s 12 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 Australian Workers' Union v Chemring Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 750 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618 Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 482 Gregory v Philip Morris Ltd [1988] FCAFC 169; 80 ALR 455 JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey [1931] HCA 15; 45 CLR 282 Quinn v Overland [2010] FCA 799 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156; 217 FCR 238 Warner Lambert Co LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 59; 311 ALR 632
Division: Fair Work Division
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