Dodd v Johnston

[1999] FCA 1354

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dodd v Johnston [1999] FCA 1354

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Interlocutory relief sought by applicant to restrain respondents hearing and determining charges against him – whether new rule afforded retrospective operation – whether presumption against retrospective operation applies – whether charging process commenced under old rule can survive repeal of that rule.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s8(c)

Dodd v Johnston [1999] FCA 496, referred to

Walker v McLeod (1984) 7 IR 94, distinguished

Nicol v Crest International Hotel (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (1983) 6 IR 75, applied

Gerrard v Mayne NicklessLtd (1996) 135 ALR 494, applied

STEPHEN WILLIAM JAMES DODD v C JOHNSTON AND OTHERS

VG 643 OF 1998

MARSHALL J
MELBOURNE
9 SEPTEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 643 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	STEPHEN WILLIAM JAMES DODD Applicant
AND:	C JOHNSTON & OTHERS Respondents
JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The order of the Court dated 15 March 1999 prohibiting the further hearing and determination by State Council of charges laid against Mr Dodd by Mr Johnston be discharged.

2.The directions hearing be adjourned to 10.15 am on 4 October 1999.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 643 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	STEPHEN WILLIAM JAMES DODD Applicant
AND:	C JOHNSTON & OTHERS Respondents

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	9 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 15 March 1999 the Court granted the applicant, Mr Dodd, interlocutory relief by ordering that the respondents refrain from hearing and determining certain charges brought by the first respondent, Mr Johnston, against Mr Dodd.  The charges were intended to be heard and determined by the State Council of the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, (“the Union”) in Melbourne on 17 March 1999. 

2. The injunction was temporary and was to last until 4.30 pm on 29 March 1999 or further order.  Successive consent orders have subsequently been made which have had the effect of extending the injunction's operation until 4 pm on 6 September 1999. On 6 September 1999 the Court heard an application by Mr Dodd to extend the injunction until the determination of the trial.  Mr White, of counsel, appeared for Mr Dodd in support of such an order.  Mr Bromberg, of counsel, appeared for most of the respondent members of State Council to oppose the continuation of interlocutory relief. 

3. On 6 September 1999 the Court reserved its judgment and formally made an order continuing the injunction. It was well understood by all concerned that no special State Council meeting would be convened to hear and determine the charges laid against Mr Dodd until and unless the Court determined the issue debated by counsel on 6 September 1999 adversely to Mr Dodd's interests.

   Background

4. These reasons for judgment should be read together with the Court's reasons for…