Cook, Robert Arthur v. Crawford, G. & Ors [1979] FCA 91

Cook, Robert Arthur v. Crawford, G. & Ors [1979] FCA 91

Claimants failed to establish that, on the balance of convenience, they were entitled to interim orders. The evidence as put forward was unlikely to remain unchanged at trial. The delay in seeking interim orders and the imminent hearing of the substantive matter were sufficient reasons for the court, in its discretion, to refuse interlocutory relief.

Parties
Claimant: Robert Arthur Cook; Respondent: G. Crawford; Respondent: G.L. Smith; Respondent: S. Mutton; Respondent: R. Fatrweather; Respondent: R. Hevey; Respondent: T. Bourke; Respondent: R. Masterson; Claimant: Ulick Colin Bignell; Claimant: Harold Shooter; Respondent: Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 1979
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Interlocutory (application for Interim Orders)
Outcome
application for interim orders refused
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Expulsion From Union, Natural Justice, Interlocutory Relief
Industrial Law Union Rules Expulsion From Union Natural Justice 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Arthur Cook

Claimant

G. Crawford

Respondent

G.L. Smith

Respondent

S. Mutton

Respondent

R. Fatrweather

Respondent

R. Hevey

Respondent

T. Bourke

Respondent

R. Masterson

Respondent

Ulick Colin Bignell

Claimant

Harold Shooter

Claimant

Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union of Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Interlocutory (application for Interim Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of rule amendments to union rules
  2. 2 Whether expulsion and dismissal of officers from office complied with union rules
  3. 3 Whether claimants were denied natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish that, on the balance of convenience, they were entitled to interim orders. The evidence as put forward was unlikely to remain unchanged at trial. The delay in seeking interim orders and the imminent hearing of the substantive matter were sufficient reasons for the court, in its discretion, to refuse interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

application for interim orders refused

Orders

  • Interim orders pursuant to section 141(2) refused.
  • Messrs Bignell and Shooter added as claimants.