Quickenden v Federated Australian University Staff Association [1988] FCA 365

Federal Court of Australia|1988-06-20|Before: Mr P, French J

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

JOHN RHYS FOX, RALPH FREDERICK HALL, DIANE ZETLIN, LESLEY RUTH JOHNSON, GARY MICHAEL WICKHAM, JOHN RASPIN PANTER and BRIAN McINNES

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER

the balance of convenience favours the applicant for the grant of

Those two criteria are not independent. Where the inconvenience that might arise in the absence of interlocutory

relief is substantial, then the strength of the case needed to

justify the grant of that relief may be somewhat less than in a case where the balance of convenience is more evenly disposed. Having regard to the potential importance of the changes' to conditions of academic staff which could be effected as a result of the revisions to the draft agreement, I am of the view that a short term restraint is justified in order to enable both parties to appear before this Court and properly argue either or both the question of the extension of the interlocutory relief and the show

It seems to me, however, that the nature of the case is one which requires urgent action on the part of the applicant to notify the respondents of the proceedings in this Court, and he will have to justify to the Court any failure to effect service before an extension of the interlocutory relief will be granted

What I propose to do is to make an order in terms of the minute, inserting "2ist day of June 1988 at 2.15 pm" as the return date of the order. In relation to the injunction, it will be in the terms of the minute, with this amendment, that it will restrain the respondents, and each of them, "until 2.15 pm on 21

The applicant is to notify the respondents immediately

by telegram or telex of the terms of the order and is to

deliver a copy of the order and supporting materials to

The matter will be relisted for 2.15 pm on 21 June 1988

to consider whether the injunction should be extended.

Date: BO Gore 19488 Counsel and Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr P. Gethin

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (16 paragraphs)

Cited By (1)