Koc v Diamond [2022] FCA 126

Koc v Diamond [2022] FCA 126

The applicant holds both a Branch Office and a National Office, so the National Executive has power under the union rules to determine charges. The prima facie case for relief is weak, and the balance of convenience does not support granting interlocutory relief; therefore, the application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Tarik Koc; First Respondent: Mark Diamond; Second Respondent: Shayne Kummerfeld; Third Respondent: Luba Grigorovitch; Fourth Respondent: James Joseph Styles; Fifth Respondent: William Lekkas; Sixth Respondent: Leanne Holmes; Seventh Respondent: Phil Altieri; Eighth Respondent: Keith McMahon; Ninth Respondent: Trent Howard; Tenth Respondent: Greg Tatnell; Eleventh Respondent: Victor Moore; Twelfth Respondent: Peter Allen; Thirteenth Respondent: Alex Claassens; Fourteenth Respondent: Ric Bean; Fifteenth Respondent: Joshua Isaac Dekuyer; Sixteenth Respondent: Craig McKinley; Seventeenth Respondent: Darren Brett Phillips; Eighteenth Respondent: John Anderson; Nineteenth Respondent: Dave Esqueria; Twentieth Respondent: Noel Morris; Twenty First Respondent: Robert Hayden; Twenty Second Respondent: Craig Turner; Twenty Third Respondent: David Babineau; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Tom Brown; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Farren Campbell; Twenty Sixth Respondent: Darren Galea
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory (motion Hearing and Determination)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Interlocutory Injunctions, Misbehaviour Charges, Disciplinary Proceedings, Costs Orders
Industrial Law Employment Law Union Rules Interlocutory Injunctions Misbehaviour Charges Disciplinary Proceedings Costs Orders

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarik Koc

Applicant

Mark Diamond

First Respondent

Shayne Kummerfeld

Second Respondent

Luba Grigorovitch

Third Respondent

James Joseph Styles

Fourth Respondent

William Lekkas

Fifth Respondent

Leanne Holmes

Sixth Respondent

Phil Altieri

Seventh Respondent

Keith McMahon

Eighth Respondent

Trent Howard

Ninth Respondent

Greg Tatnell

Tenth Respondent

Victor Moore

Eleventh Respondent

Peter Allen

Twelfth Respondent

Alex Claassens

Thirteenth Respondent

Ric Bean

Fourteenth Respondent

Joshua Isaac Dekuyer

Fifteenth Respondent

Craig McKinley

Sixteenth Respondent

Darren Brett Phillips

Seventeenth Respondent

John Anderson

Eighteenth Respondent

Dave Esqueria

Nineteenth Respondent

Noel Morris

Twentieth Respondent

Robert Hayden

Twenty First Respondent

Craig Turner

Twenty Second Respondent

David Babineau

Twenty Third Respondent

Tom Brown

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Farren Campbell

Twenty Fifth Respondent

Darren Galea

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory (motion Hearing and Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Executive or Branch Executive is empowered under union rules to determine charges of gross misbehaviour against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory relief should be granted under s 164(4) of the FW(RO) Act
  3. 3 Whether the applicant instituted the proceeding without reasonable cause for the purposes of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant holds both a Branch Office and a National Office, so the National Executive has power under the union rules to determine charges. The prima facie case for relief is weak, and the balance of convenience does not support granting interlocutory relief; therefore, the application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed as against the 21st respondent, Mr Robert Hayden.
  • Mr Tom Brown, Mr Farren Campbell and Mr Darren Galea are joined as the 24th to 26th respondents.