FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Freeman v Ambulance Victoria [2011] FCA 1141
Citation: Freeman v Ambulance Victoria [2011] FCA 1141 Parties: NEIL FREEMAN v AMBULANCE VICTORIA File number: VID 1069 of 2011 Judge: TRACEY J Date of judgment: 6 October 2011 Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 50, 351, 361, 370, 539, 723, 725-732, 734, 772
Federal Court Rules 2011 r 34Ambulance Victoria Enterprise Agreement 2009 cl 8
Cases cited:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 cited Date of hearing: 5 October 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 57 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A McDonald Solicitor for the Applicant: McDonald Murholme Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Millar Solicitor for the Applicant: Marsh & Maher
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
VID 1069 of 2011
BETWEEN: NEIL FREEMAN
ApplicantAND: AMBULANCE VICTORIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 OCTOBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant’s application for an interlocutory injunctive order be refused.
2.Costs reserved.
3.Liberty to apply.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
4.The hearing of the application be fixed for 27 October 2011.
5.The applicant file and serve any additional material on which he proposes to rely at trial on or before 18 October 2011.
6.The respondent file and serve any further material on which it proposes to rely at trial on or before 21 October 2011.
7.The applicant file and serve his contentions of fact and law on or before 24 October 2011.
8.The respondent file and serve its contentions of fact and law on or before 26 October 2011.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
VID 1069 of 2011
BETWEEN: NEIL FREEMAN
ApplicantAND: AMBULANCE VICTORIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
6 OCTOBER 2011
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Neil Freeman commenced employment with Ambulance Victoria in May 2008. He was employed as a clinical transport officer. In January 2010 he commenced full-time employment as a clinical transport officer in the car division.
Almost immediately after he commenced full-time employment, issues arose between Mr Freeman and Ambulance Victoria managers about the uniform he was wearing. In particular, managers were concerned that Mr Freeman, from time to time, had the word “paramedic” emblazoned on one or more parts of his uniform. He was not qualified as a paramedic and was not entitled to hold himself out as a paramedic.
These complaints led to a series of counselling and disciplinary sessions during 2011. They culminated in a decision, which was conveyed to Mr Freeman by letter on 23 September 2011, advising him that a decision had been made to terminate his employment in seven days subject to any further submissions which he might wish to make.
On 29 September 2011 Mr Freeman commenced the present proceeding. His originating application sought the following orders and…
Continue reading Freeman v Ambulance Victoria
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Freeman v Ambulance Victoria [2011] FCA 1141
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1141
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the applicant had established a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the principles applicable to the grant of interlocutory relief. The court determined that the applicant had not established a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the policy change would result in a detriment to patient care and that the respondent had properly considered relevant evidence in formulating its policy. The court also noted that the respondent had a legitimate interest in implementing the policy change and that there were significant public policy considerations in favour of the policy change. The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction and dismissed the application.
In addition to dismissing the application, the court made several orders to facilitate the hearing of the case at trial. These included orders for the parties to file and serve additional material and contentions of fact and law by specified dates. The court also reserved the costs of the application and granted liberty to apply for costs at the trial. The directions provided a clear roadmap for the parties to prepare for the hearing of the case at trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s application for an interlocutory injunctive order be refused.
2. Costs reserved.
3. Liberty to apply.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
4. The hearing of the application be fixed for 27 October 2011.
5. The applicant file and serve any additional material on which he proposes to rely at trial on or before 18 October 2011.
6. The respondent file and serve any further material on which it proposes to rely at trial on or before 21 October 2011.
7. The applicant file and serve his contentions of fact and law on or before 24 October 2011.
8. The respondent file and serve its contentions of fact and law on or before 26 October 2011.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.