CFMEU v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 1571

CFMEU v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 1571

The stay applications are dismissed. Even if the subject matter of the two proceedings overlaps, it is not appropriate to grant a permanent stay at this stage; less drastic measures such as consolidation or joint/consecutive hearings should be considered. The parties and the court can manage any duplicated effort or risk of inconsistent decisions via appropriate procedural orders.

Parties
Applicant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; First Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Second Respondent: Peter Keaston Reith; Third Respondent: John Joseph Fahey; Fourth Respondent: Jonathan Hamberger (in his capacity as Employment Advocate)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Stay applications dismissed; motions otherwise adjourned for directions.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Consolidation of Actions, Coercion Under Workplace Relations Act
Employment Law Industrial Law Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process Consolidation of Actions Coercion Under Workplace Relations Act

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Applicant

Commonwealth of Australia

First Respondent

Peter Keaston Reith

Second Respondent

John Joseph Fahey

Third Respondent

Jonathan Hamberger (in his capacity as Employment Advocate)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continuation of two related Federal Court proceedings constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether claims in both proceedings are fundamentally the same
  3. 3 Whether a permanent stay or less drastic order is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The stay applications are dismissed. Even if the subject matter of the two proceedings overlaps, it is not appropriate to grant a permanent stay at this stage; less drastic measures such as consolidation or joint/consecutive hearings should be considered. The parties and the court can manage any duplicated effort or risk of inconsistent decisions via appropriate procedural orders.

Court Disposition

Stay applications dismissed; motions otherwise adjourned for directions.

Orders

  • The application by the first, second and third respondents for a stay as an abuse of process is dismissed.
  • The application by the fourth respondent for a stay as an abuse of process is dismissed.