Kosiek v Marist School Australia Ltd [2023] FCA 1049

Kosiek v Marist School Australia Ltd [2023] FCA 1049

The applicant established there is a serious question to be tried concerning adverse action and EBA breach. However, he did not demonstrate that damages were inadequate or that the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory reinstatement; therefore, interlocutory relief was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Stanisław Kosiek; First Respondent: Marist School Australia Ltd; Second Respondent: Mr Michael Newman; Third Respondent: Mr Charles Brauer; Fourth Respondent: Mr Mark Elliott
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Reinstatement – Refusal of Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed; matter remitted for urgent allocation on substantive relief
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Adverse Action, Workplace Rights, Reinstatement, Balance of Convenience, Breach of Enterprise Agreement
Employment Law Industrial Relations Interlocutory Injunctions Adverse Action Workplace Rights Reinstatement Balance of Convenience Breach of Enterprise Agreement

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanisław Kosiek

Applicant

Marist School Australia Ltd

First Respondent

Mr Michael Newman

Second Respondent

Mr Charles Brauer

Third Respondent

Mr Mark Elliott

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Reinstatement – Refusal of Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory order of reinstatement should be granted
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried concerning adverse action and breach of enterprise agreement
  3. 3 Whether damages would be inadequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established there is a serious question to be tried concerning adverse action and EBA breach. However, he did not demonstrate that damages were inadequate or that the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory reinstatement; therefore, interlocutory relief was refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed; matter remitted for urgent allocation on substantive relief

Orders

  • The applicant's claim for interlocutory relief filed 23 August 2023 be refused.
  • The application for substantive relief be remitted to the National Operations Registry for urgent docket allocation.