Sutton v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2002] FCA 831

Sutton v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2002] FCA 831

Because there was a sufficient argument available to warrant intervention, the likely delay was limited, no practical problem or union rule breach was identified if the ballot did not open, and the balance of convenience favoured avoiding a potentially misconceived ballot and unnecessary expense, an order under s 221(1)(a) staying further steps in the election should be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Orders Pursuant to S 221 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) in Relation to an Election Inquiry / Interim Application; Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Interim order made staying the conduct of the election until further order; no other interlocutory orders made.
Legal Topics
['union Election' 'interim Orders' 'stay of Election' 'balance of Convenience' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']
['industrial Relations' 'trade Unions' 'election Law'] ['union Election' 'interim Orders' 'stay of Election' 'balance of Convenience' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Orders Pursuant to S 221 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) in Relation to an Election Inquiry / Interim Application; Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a sufficient case to warrant intervention under s 221(1)(a) before the election inquiry was heard.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured staying the conduct of the election until the inquiry questions were resolved.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was a sufficient argument available to warrant intervention, the likely delay was limited, no practical problem or union rule breach was identified if the ballot did not open, and the balance of convenience favoured avoiding a potentially misconceived ballot and unnecessary expense, an order under s 221(1)(a) staying further steps in the election should be made.

Court Disposition

Interim order made staying the conduct of the election until further order; no other interlocutory orders made.

Orders

  • ['Any evidence to be filed on behalf of any other party to be filed and served on or before 5.00pm on 5 June 2002.' "Liberty to any person affected to apply on twenty-four hours' notice." 'No further steps shall be taken in the conduct of the election until further order of the Court.']