Johnston v Cameron [2002] FCA 948

Johnston v Cameron [2002] FCA 948

Suppression order prohibiting publication of evidence denied except for identification of complainant; interlocutory relief granted restraining respondents from acting on resolutions not given proper notice under Rule 9 sub-rule 5; balance of convenience supported status quo pending trial; applicant failed to demonstrate serious question to be tried on other grounds except notice and possible bias by one respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 209 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Interlocutory Application; Interim Orders
Outcome
Application for suppression order dismissed except as to identification of complainant; application for interim orders granted in part.
Legal Topics
['interim Orders Under Union Rules' 'suppression Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'union Governance' 'bias in Decision Making' 'notice Requirements for Administrative Actions']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law'] ['interim Orders Under Union Rules' 'suppression Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'union Governance' 'bias in Decision Making' 'notice Requirements for Administrative Actions']

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 Pursuant to S 209 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Interlocutory Application; Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether suppression order under s 50 Federal Court of Australia Act should be granted' 'Whether resolutions of National Council made with proper notice under Rule 9 sub-rule 5' 'Whether actual bias existed among members of National Council' 'Whether National Council had power to appoint an Administrator' 'Balancing open justice against privacy/reputation interests' 'Entitlement to interlocutory relief under s 209(4) Workplace Relations Act']

Ratio Decidendi

Suppression order prohibiting publication of evidence denied except for identification of complainant; interlocutory relief granted restraining respondents from acting on resolutions not given proper notice under Rule 9 sub-rule 5; balance of convenience supported status quo pending trial; applicant failed to demonstrate serious question to be tried on other grounds except notice and possible bias by one respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for suppression order dismissed except as to identification of complainant; application for interim orders granted in part.

Orders

  • ['Respondents restrained from acting upon those resolutions of National Council of 9 July 2002 not given proper notice under Rule 9 sub-rule 5 until hearing and determination or further order.' "Suppression order made prohibiting publication of complainant's name or identifying evidence." 'Application otherwise...