Kelly v Noonan [2021] FCA 146

Kelly v Noonan [2021] FCA 146

There was a strong prima facie case that determining the C & G Resolution as proposed would be inconsistent with union rules governing allocation of members to divisions, so interim relief was warranted to restrain the National Executive from doing so, but stopping the meeting or restraining the first respondent in the interim was not justified based on the balance of convenience and the nature of the issues.

Parties
Applicant: Grahame Kelly; First Respondent: David Noonan; Second Respondent: Adrian Evans; Third Respondent: Andrew Sutherland; Fourth Respondent: Andy Burford; Fifth Respondent: Elizabeth Macpherson; Sixth Respondent: Brad Coates; Seventh Respondent: Brett Larkin; Eighth Respondent: Chris Cain; Ninth Respondent: Craig Smith; Tenth Respondent: Darren Greenfield; Eleventh Respondent: David Kirner; Twelfth Respondent: Denise Campbell-Burns; Thirteenth Respondent: Glen Williams; Fourteenth Respondent: Graeme Osborne; Fifteenth Respondent: Greg Busson; Sixteenth Respondent: Jamie Newlyn; Seventeenth Respondent: Jason Campbell; Eighteenth Respondent: Jason O'Mara; Nineteenth Respondent: Jenny Kruschel; Twentieth Respondent: John Setka; Twenty First Respondent: Leo Skourdoumbis; Twenty Second Respondent: Michael Aird; Twenty Third Respondent: Michael Cross; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Michael Ravbar; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Mich-Elle Myers; Twenty Sixth Respondent: Mick Buchan; Twenty Seventh Respondent: Paddy Crumlin; Twenty Eighth Respondent: Paul Keating; Twenty Ninth Respondent: Peter Jordan; Thirtieth Respondent: Ricky Gale; Thirty First Respondent: Rita Mallia; Thirty Second Respondent: Scott McLean; Thirty Third Respondent: Shane Stevens; Thirty Fourth Respondent: Stephen Cumberlidge; Thirty Fifth Respondent: Stephen Smyth; Thirty Sixth Respondent: Trevor Williams; Thirty Seventh Respondent: Warren Smith; Thirty Eighth Respondent: Will Tracey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief granted in part; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Union Rules Enforcement, Interlocutory Injunction, Registered Organisations, Allocation of Union Members, Union Governance
Industrial Law Employment Law Union Rules Enforcement Interlocutory Injunction Registered Organisations Allocation of Union Members Union Governance

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grahame Kelly

Applicant

David Noonan

First Respondent

Adrian Evans

Second Respondent

Andrew Sutherland

Third Respondent

Andy Burford

Fourth Respondent

Elizabeth Macpherson

Fifth Respondent

Brad Coates

Sixth Respondent

Brett Larkin

Seventh Respondent

Chris Cain

Eighth Respondent

Craig Smith

Ninth Respondent

Darren Greenfield

Tenth Respondent

David Kirner

Eleventh Respondent

Denise Campbell-Burns

Twelfth Respondent

Glen Williams

Thirteenth Respondent

Graeme Osborne

Fourteenth Respondent

Greg Busson

Fifteenth Respondent

Jamie Newlyn

Sixteenth Respondent

Jason Campbell

Seventeenth Respondent

Jason O'Mara

Eighteenth Respondent

Jenny Kruschel

Nineteenth Respondent

John Setka

Twentieth Respondent

Leo Skourdoumbis

Twenty First Respondent

Michael Aird

Twenty Second Respondent

Michael Cross

Twenty Third Respondent

Michael Ravbar

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Mich-Elle Myers

Twenty Fifth Respondent

Mick Buchan

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Paddy Crumlin

Twenty Seventh Respondent

Paul Keating

Twenty Eighth Respondent

Peter Jordan

Twenty Ninth Respondent

Ricky Gale

Thirtieth Respondent

Rita Mallia

Thirty First Respondent

Scott McLean

Thirty Second Respondent

Shane Stevens

Thirty Third Respondent

Stephen Cumberlidge

Thirty Fourth Respondent

Stephen Smyth

Thirty Fifth Respondent

Trevor Williams

Thirty Sixth Respondent

Warren Smith

Thirty Seventh Respondent

Will Tracey

Thirty Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Executive meeting was properly convened under union rules
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent falsely held himself out as Acting Secretary
  3. 3 Whether determination of the C & G Resolution would be inconsistent with union rules

Ratio Decidendi

There was a strong prima facie case that determining the C & G Resolution as proposed would be inconsistent with union rules governing allocation of members to divisions, so interim relief was warranted to restrain the National Executive from doing so, but stopping the meeting or restraining the first respondent in the interim was not justified based on the balance of convenience and the nature of the issues.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief granted in part; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Substituted service of originating application and affidavit by email on specified respondents deemed effected.
  • Time for service abridged to allow urgent hearing.