Armstrong, Jan v Elliott, Rob & Ors [1997] FCA 1374

Armstrong, Jan v Elliott, Rob & Ors [1997] FCA 1374

The motion was adjourned because there was no evidence of the attitude of respondents other than Mr Elliott, refusal of an adjournment would likely result in an effectively ex parte determination against them, and the proceedings would likely continue against Mr Elliott, creating a prospect of inconsistent findings on whether the HSUA rules had been complied with. The Court considered that the impugned resolution either was or was not made contrary to the rules and there should be no possibility of inconsistent answers to that question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Registered Organisation Performance and Observance of Rules of Registered Organisation / Notice of Motion Seeking That the Rule to Show Cause Be Made Absolute; Application by Mr Elliott to Adjourn the Motion Until Trial
Outcome
Motion adjourned until the trial of the application; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['registered Organisation Rules' 'rule to Show Cause' 'adjournment' 'ex Parte Determination' 'interim Relief']
['industrial Law'] ['registered Organisation Rules' 'rule to Show Cause' 'adjournment' 'ex Parte Determination' 'interim 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

Industrial Law Registered Organisation Performance and Observance of Rules of Registered Organisation / Notice of Motion Seeking That the Rule to Show Cause Be Made Absolute; Application by Mr Elliott to Adjourn the Motion Until Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice of motion seeking that the rule to show cause be made absolute against respondents other than Mr Elliott should be adjourned until the trial of the application.' 'Whether making the rule to show cause absolute against respondents who had not appeared would create a risk of inconsistent findings with the contested proceeding against Mr Elliott.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was adjourned because there was no evidence of the attitude of respondents other than Mr Elliott, refusal of an adjournment would likely result in an effectively ex parte determination against them, and the proceedings would likely continue against Mr Elliott, creating a prospect of inconsistent findings on whether the HSUA rules had been complied with. The Court considered that the impugned resolution either was or was not made contrary to the rules and there should be no possibility of inconsistent answers to that question.

Court Disposition

Motion adjourned until the trial of the application; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The motion, notice of which was given on 22 October 1997, be adjourned until the trial of the application.' 'Costs be reserved.']