Vickers v Hanks [1999] FCA 695

Vickers v Hanks [1999] FCA 695

Interlocutory relief was refused because, although serious questions to be tried were accepted, the applicant's case was not strong, the balance of convenience and discretionary factors were against relief due to the public interest in completing the inquiry without undue delay, available remedies against any adverse decision, and the applicant's unsatisfactorily explained delay in approaching the Court. The application to restrain the making of the decision was also considered misconceived because s 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 distinguishes conduct from the making of a decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Order of Review and Interlocutory Injunction Concerning a Public Service Act Disciplinary Inquiry / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Ex Tempore Reasons
Outcome
The applicant's claim for interlocutory relief was dismissed, with costs of the interlocutory application to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act Review' 'public Service Act Disciplinary Inquiry' 'delegation and Subdelegation' 'union Delegate Conduct' 'delay' 'alternative Remedies']
['administrative Law' 'public Service Employment' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act Review' 'public Service Act Disciplinary Inquiry' 'delegation and Subdelegation' 'union Delegate Conduct' 'delay' 'alternative Remedies']

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 for Order of Review and Interlocutory Injunction Concerning a Public Service Act Disciplinary Inquiry / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Ex Tempore Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent should be restrained until final hearing from proceeding with the inquiry or making the proposed decision.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the inquiry process was fatally flawed because investigation occurred before charges and matters were invalidly subdelegated.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the applicant was wrongly charged because the alleged conduct occurred while acting as a union delegate rather than as an officer.' 'Whether the balance of convenience and discretionary factors, including delay, public interest and alternative remedies, favoured interlocutory relief.' 'Whether an application under s 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 could restrain the making of a decision as distinct from conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interlocutory relief was refused because, although serious questions to be tried were accepted, the applicant's case was not strong, the balance of convenience and discretionary factors were against relief due to the public interest in completing the inquiry without undue delay, available remedies against any adverse decision, and the applicant's unsatisfactorily explained delay in approaching the Court. The application to restrain the making of the decision was also considered misconceived because s 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 distinguishes conduct from the making of a decision.

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim for interlocutory relief was dismissed, with costs of the interlocutory application to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's claim for interlocutory relief, as set out in paragraph 2 of his application, be dismissed." 'The costs of that interlocutory application be costs in the cause.']