Alasady v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) [2023] FCA 966

Alasady v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) [2023] FCA 966

Although the applicant demonstrated that there is a serious question to be tried at least with respect to the proportionality of sanction, the balance of convenience does not favour the granting of interlocutory injunction. Damages would be an adequate remedy, the applicant continues on suspension with pay and other employment, and evidentiary claims of hardship or irreparable harm were unsubstantiated.

Parties
Applicant: Muayad Alasady; First Respondent: Australian Capital Territory; Second Respondent: David Peffer; Third Respondent: Ian McPhee
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Determination
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Adverse Action, Apprehended Bias, Enterprise Agreements, Administrative Law
Industrial Law Employment Law Practice and Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Adverse Action Apprehended Bias Enterprise Agreements Administrative Law

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muayad Alasady

Applicant

Australian Capital Territory

First Respondent

David Peffer

Second Respondent

Ian McPhee

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted to restrain disciplinary sanction or adverse action
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to breach of enterprise agreement, apprehended bias, failure to apply Briginshaw principles or proportionality of proposed sanction
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant demonstrated that there is a serious question to be tried at least with respect to the proportionality of sanction, the balance of convenience does not favour the granting of interlocutory injunction. Damages would be an adequate remedy, the applicant continues on suspension with pay and other employment, and evidentiary claims of hardship or irreparable harm were unsubstantiated.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief dated 3 August 2023 be dismissed.
  • The costs of and pertaining to the application be reserved.