Alasady v Australian Capital Territory

In Alasady v Australian Capital Territory, the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to halt a disciplinary investigation and procedure against him. The applicant alleged that there were breaches of the relevant enterprise agreements and that the CEO of CHS had displayed bias in making public statements about the investigation. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a prima facie case of breach of enterprise agreements, whether there was a prima facie case of apprehended bias on the part of the person who would be the sanction delegate, and whether the balance of convenience favoured a grant of interlocutory injunctive relief.

The court found that the applicant's claims were weak and largely speculative. The court was particularly critical of the applicant's claims regarding predetermination and the "inevitability" of termination, finding them to be premature. The court held that the prejudice to the applicant was outweighed by the prejudice to the respondents, and accordingly dismissed the application for interlocutory injunctive relief. The court reserved the question of costs.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the applicant had not established a prima facie case of breach of enterprise agreements or apprehended bias, and that the balance of convenience did not favour a grant of interlocutory injunctive relief. The court's decision is a reminder of the high threshold that must be met for an interlocutory injunction to be granted, particularly in cases involving disciplinary investigations and procedures.