Jolly v Sharma [2024] FCA 1511

Jolly v Sharma [2024] FCA 1511

Although a prima facie case that the impugned resolutions are invalid was established, it is not a strong case and the applicant has not shown that the balance of convenience strongly favours granting interim orders; application for interim relief is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Paris Jolly; First Respondent: Vikrant Sharma; Second Respondent: Alex Claassens; Third Respondent: Shayne Kummerfeld; Fourth Respondent: Victor Moore; Fifth Respondent: Philip Altieri; Sixth Respondent: Keith McMahon; Seventh Respondent: Darren Galea; Eighth Respondent: Greg Tatnell; Ninth Respondent: Noel Morris; Tenth Respondent: Trent Howard; Eleventh Respondent: William Lekkas; Twelfth Respondent: Leanne Holmes; Thirteenth Respondent: James Styles; Fourteenth Respondent: Peter Allen; Fifteenth Respondent: Toby Warnes; Sixteenth Respondent: Byron Cubit; Seventeenth Respondent: Darren Phillips; Eighteenth Respondent: Joshua Dekuyer; Nineteenth Respondent: Craig Turner; Twentieth Respondent: Farren Campbell; Twenty First Respondent: Dave Babineau; Twenty Second Respondent: Diego Esqueria; Twenty Third Respondent: Cathy Birch; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Tom Brown; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Stef Whyte; Twenty Sixth Respondent: Steve McEvoy; Twenty Seventh Respondent: Claire McKenna; Twenty Eighth Respondent: Brian Penza; Twenty Ninth Respondent: Bryan Evans; Thirtieth Respondent: David Patton; Thirty First Respondent: Joe Dennis; Thirty Second Respondent: John Nicolopoulos; Thirty Third Respondent: Peter Veis; Thirty Fourth Respondent: Catherine Noone; Thirty Fifth Respondent: Chris McMahon; Thirty Sixth Respondent: Frank Pavic; Thirty Seventh Respondent: John Antonopoulos; Thirty Eighth Respondent: John Saw; Thirty Ninth Respondent: Paul Jumpertz; Fortieth Respondent: Rupert Braganza; Forty First Respondent: Wayne Hicks; Forty Second Respondent: Tarik Koc
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Orders / Interlocutory (interim Relief Sought, Pre Trial)
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Union Governance, Interpretation of Organisation Rules, Balance of Convenience
Industrial Law Interim Injunctions Union Governance Interpretation of Organisation Rules 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paris Jolly

Applicant

Vikrant Sharma

First Respondent

Alex Claassens

Second Respondent

Shayne Kummerfeld

Third Respondent

Victor Moore

Fourth Respondent

Philip Altieri

Fifth Respondent

Keith McMahon

Sixth Respondent

Darren Galea

Seventh Respondent

Greg Tatnell

Eighth Respondent

Noel Morris

Ninth Respondent

Trent Howard

Tenth Respondent

William Lekkas

Eleventh Respondent

Leanne Holmes

Twelfth Respondent

James Styles

Thirteenth Respondent

Peter Allen

Fourteenth Respondent

Toby Warnes

Fifteenth Respondent

Byron Cubit

Sixteenth Respondent

Darren Phillips

Seventeenth Respondent

Joshua Dekuyer

Eighteenth Respondent

Craig Turner

Nineteenth Respondent

Farren Campbell

Twentieth Respondent

Dave Babineau

Twenty First Respondent

Diego Esqueria

Twenty Second Respondent

Cathy Birch

Twenty Third Respondent

Tom Brown

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Stef Whyte

Twenty Fifth Respondent

Steve McEvoy

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Claire McKenna

Twenty Seventh Respondent

Brian Penza

Twenty Eighth Respondent

Bryan Evans

Twenty Ninth Respondent

David Patton

Thirtieth Respondent

Joe Dennis

Thirty First Respondent

John Nicolopoulos

Thirty Second Respondent

Peter Veis

Thirty Third Respondent

Catherine Noone

Thirty Fourth Respondent

Chris McMahon

Thirty Fifth Respondent

Frank Pavic

Thirty Sixth Respondent

John Antonopoulos

Thirty Seventh Respondent

John Saw

Thirty Eighth Respondent

Paul Jumpertz

Thirty Ninth Respondent

Rupert Braganza

Fortieth Respondent

Wayne Hicks

Forty First Respondent

Tarik Koc

Forty Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Orders / Interlocutory (interim Relief Sought, Pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a prima facie case that the Branch Executive and National Executive Resolutions are invalid
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of interim orders
  3. 3 Whether the resolutions are contrary to Rule 58(1) of the Union Rules

Ratio Decidendi

Although a prima facie case that the impugned resolutions are invalid was established, it is not a strong case and the applicant has not shown that the balance of convenience strongly favours granting interim orders; application for interim relief is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interim relief pursuant to s 164(4) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed.