Sutton v The Commonwealth of Australia [2011] FCA 14

Sutton v The Commonwealth of Australia [2011] FCA 14

The applicant’s case, asserting permanent appointment, was not reasonably arguable because all documentation and relevant Defence Instructions supported a fixed period appointment; discretionary factors, including delay in seeking redress and absence of capacity for the court to grant the relief sought, also militated against grant of interlocutory relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application Determination
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
['defence Force Appointments' 'fixed Periods of Service' 'redress of Grievance Procedures' 'interlocutory 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application Determination

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's appointment in the Australian Regular Army was permanent or for a fixed period" 'Whether the Army should be required to extend applicant’s employment until his Redress of Grievance had been resolved' 'Whether procedural fairness required extension of the applicant’s service pending his grievance']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s case, asserting permanent appointment, was not reasonably arguable because all documentation and relevant Defence Instructions supported a fixed period appointment; discretionary factors, including delay in seeking redress and absence of capacity for the court to grant the relief sought, also militated against grant of interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • ['The claim for interlocutory relief be dismissed.']