Grollo v Bates

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NO. VG555 of 1993
GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: BRUNO GROLLO
Applicant

m: KIMBERLEY ELIZABETH BATES

First Respondent

AND: LINDA DESSAU

Second Respondent

AND : PETER MACAULEY

Third Respondent

AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Fourth Respondent

VG6 of 1994

BETWEEN : ROBERT CHARLES HOWARD
Applicant

AND: KIMBEFUEY ELIZABETH BATES

First Respondent

m: LINDA DESSAU

Second Respondent

AND: - PETER MACAULEY

-.

Thud Respondent

AND : COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Fourth Respondent

GORAM: Jenkinson J.
M: Melbourne

RECEIVED

mz!&: 15 March, 1994 . 12 APR 1994
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

When an application for a stay of an order is made, there are open then to the parties alternative ways of solving the problem which it was sought to solve by the application for the stay. That is vividly illustrated by the course which Gray J. himself took. I do not pay any attention to the question as to whether before Gray J. the argument presented to me this afternoon was or was not presented, because it was an urgent, and no doubt hurried, and troubling application for counsel to argue in vacation. But the matter having come before a Full Court and the contempt point having been adumbrated in written submissions to that court, the possibility of having the fingerprints taken, and then kept as it were, no further use being made of them, is one of the whole series of possible outcomes, and it cannot, in my view be said that this question has not been agitated by the parties before a court, as it happens in this case a Full

Court. And again it cannot be said that there was not an

explain to the High Court the irremediable prejudices that opportunity to agitate it before the High Court when trying to

might arise in various events. And in those circumstances - a Full Court and the High Court having had the matter drawn to their attention - I think it would be wrong for me to make the order sought, even so brief an injunction, as is contemplated
until next Monday, and accordingly, in each czse the motion is
dismissed.
I certify that this and the 2
preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Jenklnson.
Dated: 15 March, 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grollo v Bates involved multiple applicants, including Bruno Grollo and Robert Charles Howard, who sought various remedies against respondents Kimberley Elizabeth Bates, Linda Dessau, Peter Macauley, and the Commonwealth of Australia. The applicants contested orders that had been made in earlier proceedings, specifically seeking a stay of these orders, and raised issues concerning contempt and potential prejudice if the orders were enforced. The applications were heard in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically within the Victoria District Registry of the General Division.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants were entitled to a stay of the orders in question, and if so, under what conditions. The applicants argued that the orders could cause them irremediable prejudice, while the respondents contended that the orders were necessary and should be enforced. The court had to consider whether the applicants had adequately demonstrated that they would suffer significant harm if the orders were not stayed, and whether there were other means available to address the applicants' concerns without needing to stay the orders.

In his judgment, Justice Jenkinson determined that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to justify a stay of the orders. The court considered the possibility of alternative solutions, such as having the applicants' fingerprints taken and then not using them further, which the applicants had not pursued. The court concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irremediable prejudice if the orders were enforced, and that other remedies were available to them. Consequently, the applications for a stay were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the applications for a stay of the orders were dismissed, and no stay was granted. The orders from the earlier proceedings remained in effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	) NO. VG555 of 1993
GENERAL DIVISION	)

explain to the High Court the irremediable prejudices that	opportunity to agitate it before the High Court when trying to
might arise in various events. And in those circumstances - a Full Court and the High Court having had the matter drawn to their attention - I think it would be wrong for me to make the order sought, even so brief an injunction, as is contemplated
until next Monday, and accordingly, in each czse the motion is dismissed.