Quickenden, T.I. v F.A.U.S.A. & Ors [1988] FCA 317

Quickenden, T.I. v F.A.U.S.A. & Ors [1988] FCA 317

While applicant showed a serious question to be tried regarding compliance with union rules, the alleged breaches were formal and not substantial; the balance of convenience did not favour continuing the interlocutory restraint, especially given wider impact on university staff. Court has jurisdiction as a single judge under Conciliation and Arbitration Act s.141.

Parties
Applicant: Terence Ivan Quickenden; First Respondent: Federated Australian University Staff Association; Second Respondent: John Rhys Fox; Second Respondent: Ralph Frederick Hall; Second Respondent: Diane Zetlin; Second Respondent: Lesley Ruth Johnson; Second Respondent: Gary Michael Wickham; Second Respondent: John Raspin Panter; Second Respondent: Brian McInnes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application / Discharge of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Second Tier Salary Increase, Formal Compliance With Union Rules, Interim Restraining Order, Injunction, Balance of Convenience, Jurisdiction of Federal Court
Industrial Law Second Tier Salary Increase Formal Compliance With Union Rules Interim Restraining Order Injunction Balance of Convenience Jurisdiction of Federal Court

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Ivan Quickenden

Applicant

Federated Australian University Staff Association

First Respondent

John Rhys Fox

Second Respondent

Ralph Frederick Hall

Second Respondent

Diane Zetlin

Second Respondent

Lesley Ruth Johnson

Second Respondent

Gary Michael Wickham

Second Respondent

John Raspin Panter

Second Respondent

Brian McInnes

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Application / Discharge of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Federal Executive of FAUSA breached Rules by failing to notify branch secretaries before agreeing to revised second tier settlement
  2. 2 Whether meeting of Executive complied with requirements for notice and observers under association rules
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of single judge to grant relief under Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 s.141

Ratio Decidendi

While applicant showed a serious question to be tried regarding compliance with union rules, the alleged breaches were formal and not substantial; the balance of convenience did not favour continuing the interlocutory restraint, especially given wider impact on university staff. Court has jurisdiction as a single judge under Conciliation and Arbitration Act s.141.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction discharged

Orders

  • The interlocutory injunction ordered on 20 June 1988 is hereby discharged.