Paull v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 149

Paull v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 149

The interlocutory injunction was refused because the applicants did not establish a serious question to be tried: the Full Bench's brief reasons showed that it considered and rejected the applicants' adjournment submission, and the applicants' challenge was in substance a merits challenge rather than an arguable jurisdictional error. In any event, the balance of convenience favoured Linfox because the Fair Work Commission appeal could be heard and determined sooner, while delay would maintain the status quo and prevent Linfox from requiring order picking.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 39 B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for an Interlocutory Injunction in a Judicial Review Proceeding / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The applicants' interlocutory application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'fair Work Commission Appeal' 'enterprise Agreement Dispute Resolution' 'adjournment']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'administrative Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'fair Work Commission Appeal' 'enterprise Agreement Dispute Resolution' 'adjournment']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 39 B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for an Interlocutory Injunction in a Judicial Review Proceeding / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Fair Work Commission should be restrained from proceeding further in appeal matter C2017/6488 until the Federal Court determined the judicial review application.' "Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the Fair Work Commission's refusal to adjourn the appeal was infected by jurisdictional error." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory injunction was refused because the applicants did not establish a serious question to be tried: the Full Bench's brief reasons showed that it considered and rejected the applicants' adjournment submission, and the applicants' challenge was in substance a merits challenge rather than an arguable jurisdictional error. In any event, the balance of convenience favoured Linfox because the Fair Work Commission appeal could be heard and determined sooner, while delay would maintain the status quo and prevent Linfox from requiring order picking.

Court Disposition

The applicants' interlocutory application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' interlocutory application of 2 February 2018 is dismissed." "The first respondent's costs of that application are reserved." 'The case management hearing be adjourned to a date to be fixed pending the hearing and determination in the Fair Work Commission of Allen Paull and Ors v Linfox Pty Ltd...