Kingham v Sutton [2001] FCA 328

Kingham v Sutton [2001] FCA 328

Each of the four matters for which applicants sought a rule to show cause raised a serious issue to be tried; the Court was satisfied interlocutory relief should be granted to restrain the first respondents and the Industrial Registrar from implementing or certifying the rule amendments until the matter is further argued, and that the Court has the requisite jurisdiction and power to do so.

Parties
Applicants: Martin Kingham, Martin O'Malley, Kevin Reynolds and Greg Simcoe; First Respondents: John Sutton, Vic Fitzgerald, Albert Littler, Bill Oliver, Lindsay Fraser, Alex Bukarica, Peter McClelland, Trevor Zeltner, Paul Waters, Andrew Ferguson, Wally Trohear, Garry Howcroft, Tony Benson, Ben Carslake, Joe McDonald, George Wason and Trevor Melksham; Second Respondent: Margaret Buchanan, Industrial Registrar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief and Rule to Show Cause / Interlocutory (orders for Respondents to Show Cause and Interlocutory Injunctions Granted Pending Final Determination)
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made; respondents ordered to show cause; injunctive relief granted pending further argument.
Legal Topics
Union Rules Enforcement, Election Procedures, Certification of Rule Changes, Jurisdiction for Injunctive Relief
Industrial Law Union Rules Enforcement Election Procedures Certification of Rule Changes Jurisdiction for Injunctive Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Kingham, Martin O'Malley, Kevin Reynolds and Greg Simcoe

Applicants

John Sutton, Vic Fitzgerald, Albert Littler, Bill Oliver, Lindsay Fraser, Alex Bukarica, Peter McClelland, Trevor Zeltner, Paul Waters, Andrew Ferguson, Wally Trohear, Garry Howcroft, Tony Benson, Ben Carslake, Joe McDonald, George Wason and Trevor Melksham

First Respondents

Margaret Buchanan, Industrial Registrar

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief and Rule to Show Cause / Interlocutory (orders for Respondents to Show Cause and Interlocutory Injunctions Granted Pending Final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are serious issues to be tried regarding the application of union rules to elections and rule changes
  2. 2 Whether the Court should grant interlocutory relief restraining steps to certify or implement rule amendments
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the Industrial Registrar

Ratio Decidendi

Each of the four matters for which applicants sought a rule to show cause raised a serious issue to be tried; the Court was satisfied interlocutory relief should be granted to restrain the first respondents and the Industrial Registrar from implementing or certifying the rule amendments until the matter is further argued, and that the Court has the requisite jurisdiction and power to do so.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made; respondents ordered to show cause; injunctive relief granted pending further argument.

Orders

  • Respondents to appear before the Court to show cause why substantive orders should not be made as sought.
  • Until 4.30 pm on 29 March 2001 or further order, first respondents restrained from taking any or further steps to have rule amendments certified or given effect.