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.
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application Determination
Legal Issues
- 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.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment