Kennedy, John Patrick v Australasian Coal & Shale Employees Federation & Anor [1983] FCA 325

Kennedy, John Patrick v Australasian Coal & Shale Employees Federation & Anor [1983] FCA 325

The Court held it had accrued jurisdiction to determine claims against the employer (second respondent) because the employment issue formed a central part of the controversy relating to the applicant’s eligibility for union membership under s.144, the defence raised by the union necessitated the determination of whether employment existed, and both claims derived from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Parties
Applicant: John Patrick Kennedy; First Respondent: The Australasian Coal and Shale Employees Federation; Second Respondent: Elcom Collieries Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Application for Declarations and Interlocutory Relief Under Federal Industrial Law / Interlocutory (application by Second Respondent to Be Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Application by the second respondent to be dismissed from the proceedings is refused.
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Jurisdiction, Accrued Jurisdiction, Union Membership Eligibility, Interlocutory Injunctions
Industrial Law Federal Jurisdiction Practice and Procedure Joinder of Parties Jurisdiction Accrued Jurisdiction Union Membership Eligibility Interlocutory Injunctions

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Patrick Kennedy

Applicant

The Australasian Coal and Shale Employees Federation

First Respondent

Elcom Collieries Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Declarations and Interlocutory Relief Under Federal Industrial Law / Interlocutory (application by Second Respondent to Be Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to determine a claim against the second respondent (employer) which arises under non-federal law but is part of the same controversy as the federal claim under s.144 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904-1983 against the first respondent (union)
  2. 2 Whether claims against different parties (union and employer) can form part of the same justiciable controversy for accrued jurisdiction purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held it had accrued jurisdiction to determine claims against the employer (second respondent) because the employment issue formed a central part of the controversy relating to the applicant’s eligibility for union membership under s.144, the defence raised by the union necessitated the determination of whether employment existed, and both claims derived from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Court Disposition

Application by the second respondent to be dismissed from the proceedings is refused.

Orders

  • The application of the second respondent to be dismissed from these proceedings is refused.
  • Costs reserved.