Turner, Paul v Australasian Coal & Shale Employees Federation & Elcom Colleries Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 308

Turner, Paul v Australasian Coal & Shale Employees Federation & Elcom Colleries Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 308

The second respondent's application to be dismissed from the proceedings is refused because, for reasons given in matter No. 14 of 1983, the employment of the applicant by the second respondent is a central part of the controversy and the Court's accrued jurisdiction applies.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Turner; 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 Declaration and Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Order—application to Dismiss Second Respondent
Outcome
Second respondent's application to be dismissed refused; costs reserved; directions hearing set.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Federal Court, Accrued Jurisdiction, Employment Status, Party Joinder
Industrial Law Practice and Procedure Jurisdiction of Federal Court Accrued Jurisdiction Employment Status Party Joinder

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 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Turner

Applicant

The Australasian Coal and Shale Employees Federation

First Respondent

Elcom Collieries Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaration and Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Order—application to Dismiss Second Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to deal with the non-federal claim against the second respondent
  2. 2 Whether the employment of the applicant by the second respondent forms part of the controversy with the first respondent
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent should be dismissed from the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent's application to be dismissed from the proceedings is refused because, for reasons given in matter No. 14 of 1983, the employment of the applicant by the second respondent is a central part of the controversy and the Court's accrued jurisdiction applies.

Court Disposition

Second respondent's application to be dismissed refused; costs reserved; directions hearing set.

Orders

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