Health Services Union v Jackson (No 2) [2015] FCA 670

Health Services Union v Jackson (No 2) [2015] FCA 670

There is insufficient evidence for the court to infer the Union's proceedings against Ms Jackson are brought for an improper or collateral purpose, nor is the absence of documentary evidence attributable to intentional misconduct by the Union after proceedings commenced. The missing evidence is largely the result of events before the proceedings, and its absence affects both parties. No abuse of process or compelling forensic disadvantage is established warranting a permanent stay. The applications for a stay are refused.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent/respondent/cross Claimant: Health Services Union; Respondent/cross Claimant/third Cross Respondent: Katherine Jackson; Applicant/first Cross Respondent: Robert Elliott; Second Cross Respondent: Michael Williamson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Applications for Permanent Stay of Proceedings in Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application (stay) Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for permanent stay of proceedings refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Unavailability of Evidence, Improper Purpose
Practice and Procedure Abuse of Process Permanent Stay of Proceedings Unavailability of Evidence Improper Purpose

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Services Union

Applicant/cross Respondent/respondent/cross Claimant

Katherine Jackson

Respondent/cross Claimant/third Cross Respondent

Robert Elliott

Applicant/first Cross Respondent

Michael Williamson

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Permanent Stay of Proceedings in Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application (stay) Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings were brought for an improper purpose
  2. 2 Whether a permanent stay should be granted due to unavailability of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence for the court to infer the Union's proceedings against Ms Jackson are brought for an improper or collateral purpose, nor is the absence of documentary evidence attributable to intentional misconduct by the Union after proceedings commenced. The missing evidence is largely the result of events before the proceedings, and its absence affects both parties. No abuse of process or compelling forensic disadvantage is established warranting a permanent stay. The applications for a stay are refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permanent stay of proceedings refused.

Orders

  • The respondent's application for a permanent stay of the proceeding be refused.
  • The third cross-respondent's application for a permanent stay of the proceeding be refused.