Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [No 2] [1998] HCA 32

High Court of Australia Hayne J Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [No 2] [1998] HCA 32

ORDER Upon the undertaking of the first to 13th applicants inclusive to pay the Maritime Union of Australia, Peter Breukers, Jake Haub, Kieran Coyle and the individuals referred to in par 1 of the statement of claim in action VG 152 of 1998 in the Federal Court of Australia, whom Kieran Coyle represents, to Patrick Stevedores No 1 Pty Ltd, Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd, Patrick Stevedores No 3 Pty Ltd and National Stevedoring Tasmania Pty Ltd, adversely affected by the stay granted by this Court, such compensation if any as the Court thinks just in such manner as the Court directs;

1. Stay pars 1, 2 and 4 of the orders made by North J in the Federal Court of Australia on 21 April 1998, until 5 pm, 27 April 1998 or further order.

2. Reserve costs.

3. Certify for the attendance of counsel.

Hayne J.

1. The applicants seek a stay of proceedings pending the hearing of their application for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which gave leave to appeal, varied the orders of North J made in the Federal Court on 21 April 1998 in ways which I do not now notice, but otherwise dismissed the appeals.

2. The principles to be applied in such an application are well established. The jurisdiction to grant a stay is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and finds its most frequent use in order to preserve the subject matter of litigation. Thus, as was mentioned when the matter first came on before me last night, in Tait v The Queen, [163] the jurisdiction was invoked to prevent the execution of sentence upon Tait. There it was exercised: [164]

without giving any consideration to or expressing any opinion as to the grounds upon which [the substance of the application to the Court was] to be based, but entirely so that the authority of this Court may be maintained and we may have another opportunity of considering it. It is then an ample jurisdiction. 1. (1962) 108 CLR 620. 2. Tait v The Queen (1962) 108 CLR 620 at 624, per Dixon CJ.