Town, Meredyth v Australian Telecommunications Commission & Anor [1982] FCA 80

Town, Meredyth v Australian Telecommunications Commission & Anor [1982] FCA 80

The respondents, having made a stand-down declaration expressly under s.5(a), cannot now justify it by reliance on s.5(b); the actual ground relied upon is determinative. Section 5 does not require that industrial action be ongoing at the time of the declaration, provided it was the cause of the relevant disruption. The lack of advance notice to the applicant does not invalidate the declaration. The declaration was effective to disentitle the applicant to remuneration for the relevant period, even without explicit wording concerning s.6.

Parties
Applicant: Meredyth Town; First Respondent: Australian Telecommunications Commission; Second Respondent: Alfred Alexander Eves
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 1982
Procedural Posture
Order of Review (administrative Law) and Contempt Proceedings / Reasons for Judgment on Preliminary Questions; Reasons for Penalty
Outcome
Partial findings for the applicant and for the respondents on different preliminary questions; penalties imposed for contempt.
Legal Topics
Standing Down of Employees, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Statutory Interpretation, Contempt for Intimidating Witnesses and Parties, Penalty for Contempt
Administrative Law Employment Law Industrial Law Contempt of Court Standing Down of Employees Judicial Review of Administrative Action Statutory Interpretation Contempt for Intimidating Witnesses and Parties +1 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meredyth Town

Applicant

Australian Telecommunications Commission

First Respondent

Alfred Alexander Eves

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Order of Review (administrative Law) and Contempt Proceedings / Reasons for Judgment on Preliminary Questions; Reasons for Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Telecom could support a stand-down declaration under s.5(b) when it purported to act under s.5(a)
  2. 2 Whether the inability of the applicant to be usefully employed was 'by reason of the existence of any industrial action' under s.5
  3. 3 Whether s.5(b) applied to the applicant and respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, having made a stand-down declaration expressly under s.5(a), cannot now justify it by reliance on s.5(b); the actual ground relied upon is determinative. Section 5 does not require that industrial action be ongoing at the time of the declaration, provided it was the cause of the relevant disruption. The lack of advance notice to the applicant does not invalidate the declaration. The declaration was effective to disentitle the applicant to remuneration for the relevant period, even without explicit wording concerning s.6.

Court Disposition

Partial findings for the applicant and for the respondents on different preliminary questions; penalties imposed for contempt.

Orders

  • The respondents are not entitled to now rely on s.5(b)
  • It is open to find that inability to be usefully employed or disruption was by reason of industrial action under s.5