Briant v Martin [2020] FCA 1009

Briant v Martin [2020] FCA 1009

The applicant established a prima facie case for interlocutory relief regarding her dismissal but the submissions were not strongly persuasive and the balance of convenience did not favour granting interlocutory relief. Many decisions of the Branch Executive were open to the respondents on the evidence, there was no pressing financial or operational need for interlocutory reinstatement, and the proper remedy is an expedited trial.

Parties
Applicant: Angela Briant; First Respondent: Bruce Martin; Second Respondent: Lucy Reeves; Third Respondent: Robert Thomas; Fourth Respondent: Gwen McDermott; Fifth Respondent: Andrew Milne; Sixth Respondent: Patricia Scrivener; Seventh Respondent: Helen Keogh; Eighth Respondent: Maxine Brahim
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Determination of Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Dismissal of Office Bearers, Procedural Fairness, Meeting Procedure, Interlocutory Injunctions, Registered Organisations
Industrial Law Employment Law Union Rules Dismissal of Office Bearers Procedural Fairness Meeting Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Registered Organisations

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Briant

Applicant

Bruce Martin

First Respondent

Lucy Reeves

Second Respondent

Robert Thomas

Third Respondent

Gwen McDermott

Fourth Respondent

Andrew Milne

Fifth Respondent

Patricia Scrivener

Sixth Respondent

Helen Keogh

Seventh Respondent

Maxine Brahim

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Determination of Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant's dismissal from office was contrary to the rules of the union
  2. 2 Whether proper procedure and procedural fairness were afforded in the applicant's dismissal
  3. 3 Whether constraints placed on the applicant were contrary to union rules

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a prima facie case for interlocutory relief regarding her dismissal but the submissions were not strongly persuasive and the balance of convenience did not favour granting interlocutory relief. Many decisions of the Branch Executive were open to the respondents on the evidence, there was no pressing financial or operational need for interlocutory reinstatement, and the proper remedy is an expedited trial.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief contained within the applicant's originating application dated 24 June 2020 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.