Joe Slater Thompson, James O'Neill and Wilfred Taylor & Ors v L.C. Townsend & Ors [1979] FCA 151

Joe Slater Thompson, James O'Neill and Wilfred Taylor & Ors v L.C. Townsend & Ors [1979] FCA 151

Although the applicants established a prima facie case that the prescribed procedures under Rule 50 for amending union rules were not observed, they failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief. There is also no jurisdiction to make one of the interim orders sought as it does not relate to the matters in the principal proceedings. The application is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Joe Slater Thompson; Applicant: James O'Neill; Applicant: Wilfred Taylor; Respondent: L. C. Townsend; Respondent: J. K. Sandilands; Respondent: D. E. Jarrad; Respondent: J. E. Buck; Respondent: W. J. Allamby; Respondent: D. J. Foreman; Respondent: J. D. Bennett; Respondent: P. W. Neham; Respondent: G. J. Burge; Respondent: A. McDonald; Respondent: C. Austin; Respondent: The Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation of Australia; Respondent: Garry Ernest Sherriff; Respondent: E. M. McManus; Respondent: S. Loucanaris; Respondent: J. E. Ford; Respondent: A. Harvey; Respondent: T. Gearon; Respondent: P. Slevin; Respondent: J. J. McDougall; Respondent: R. Bennion; Respondent: A. C. Knight; Respondent: M. Anderson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 1979
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Orders / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Final Hearing)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Orders, Injunctions, Jurisdiction of a Single Judge, Union Rules, Rule Amendments, Balance of Convenience
Industrial Law Interim Orders Injunctions Jurisdiction of a Single Judge Union Rules Rule Amendments Balance of Convenience

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joe Slater Thompson

Applicant

James O'Neill

Applicant

Wilfred Taylor

Applicant

L. C. Townsend

Respondent

J. K. Sandilands

Respondent

D. E. Jarrad

Respondent

J. E. Buck

Respondent

W. J. Allamby

Respondent

D. J. Foreman

Respondent

J. D. Bennett

Respondent

P. W. Neham

Respondent

G. J. Burge

Respondent

A. McDonald

Respondent

C. Austin

Respondent

The Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation of Australia

Respondent

Garry Ernest Sherriff

Respondent

E. M. McManus

Respondent

S. Loucanaris

Respondent

J. E. Ford

Respondent

A. Harvey

Respondent

T. Gearon

Respondent

P. Slevin

Respondent

J. J. McDougall

Respondent

R. Bennion

Respondent

A. C. Knight

Respondent

M. Anderson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Orders / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court constituted by a single judge has jurisdiction to grant interim orders where the main proceedings are before a Full Court
  2. 2 Whether the orders sought relate to the matters to which the proceedings relate, as required by s.140(10) and s.141(2) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
  3. 3 Whether the applicants made out a prima facie case for the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants established a prima facie case that the prescribed procedures under Rule 50 for amending union rules were not observed, they failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief. There is also no jurisdiction to make one of the interim orders sought as it does not relate to the matters in the principal proceedings. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.