Peek v Chief Executive Officer, Australian Government Solicitor [2005] FCA 870

Peek v Chief Executive Officer, Australian Government Solicitor [2005] FCA 870

The applicant had not established an entitlement to interlocutory relief either to stay the operation of directions regarding medical examination or suspension of salary payments, nor to mandatory restoration of discretionary salary; the respondent was entitled to require medical examination under the SRC Act, and interlocutory relief could not be granted in view of uncertainty and absence of legal obligation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application / Interlocutory Application (orders and Directions)
Outcome
Interlocutory relief declined; orders made by consent as to filing, service, hearing dates, and costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'medical Examination Direction' 'compensation for Psychological Injury' 'administrative Remedies']
['administrative Law' 'employment Law'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'medical Examination Direction' 'compensation for Psychological Injury' 'administrative Remedies']

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

Administrative Law Application / Interlocutory Application (orders and Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory relief staying a direction to attend a medical examination' 'Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory relief regarding suspension of salary payments' 'Whether the applicant is entitled to mandatory interlocutory orders restoring discretionary salary']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had not established an entitlement to interlocutory relief either to stay the operation of directions regarding medical examination or suspension of salary payments, nor to mandatory restoration of discretionary salary; the respondent was entitled to require medical examination under the SRC Act, and interlocutory relief could not be granted in view of uncertainty and absence of legal obligation.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief declined; orders made by consent as to filing, service, hearing dates, and costs.

Orders

  • ['Applicant to file and serve points of claim/an outline of contentions by 15 June 2005.' 'Respondents to file and serve response by 22 June 2005.' 'Respondents to file and serve affidavits relied upon by 22 June 2005.' 'Applicant to file and serve affidavits in reply by 29 June 2005.' 'Applicant to file and serve...