Haritou v Skourdoumbis

Case [2002] FCA 116

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Haritou v Skourdoumbis [2002] FCA 116

INDUSTRIAL – trade union – interim relief – enforcement of rules – charges laid against member – natural justice – whether “invincible bias” – whether right to legal representation

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 209

Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 -referred to
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 – referred to
Australian Workers’ Union v Bowen No. 2 (1948) 77 CLR 601 - followed
Cains v Jenkins (1979) 28 ALR 219 - followed
Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243 - followed
Dodd v Johnston (1999) 91 IR 352 – referred to
Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v Football Association Ltd [1971] Ch 591 – referred to
Fagan v National Coursing Association of SA Incorporated (1974) 8 SASR 546 – referred to
Fraser v Mudge [1975] 3 All ER 78 – referred to
Maynard v Osmond [1976] 3 WLR 711 – referred to
McLean v The Workers Union [1929] 1 Ch 602 - followed
McNab v Auburn Soccer Sports Club Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 54 – referred to
Patrick Stevedores Operations No. 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1 – referred to
Pett v Greyhound Racing Association Ltd No. 2 [1970] 1 QB 46 – referred to
R v Visiting Justice at HM Prison, Pentridge; Ex parte Walker [1975] VR 883 – referred to
Skourdoumbis v Maher (unreported, Finkelstein J, 16 October 2001) – referred to
The King v Board of Appeal; ex parte Kay (1916) 22 CLR 183 - followed

MICHAEL HARITOU v LEO SKOURDOUMBIS, JOSEPH PATTI, FRANK VARI and MICHAEL MITTEN

V 1200 of 2001

FINKELSTEIN J
8 FEBRUARY 2002
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 1200 of 2001

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL HARITOU
Applicant

AND:

LEO SKOURDOUMBIS,
JOSEPH PATTI,
FRANK VARI and
MICHAEL MITTEN
Respondents

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 FEBRUARY 2002

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for interim relief be dismissed.

2.The applicant file and serve any affidavits on which it seeks to rely at trial before 4.15 pm on 22 February 2002.

3.The respondents file and serve any affidavits on which they seek to rely at trial before 4.15 pm on 8 March 2002.

4.The matter be listed for further directions after 8 March 2002.

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

V 1200 of 2001

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL HARITOU
Applicant

AND:

LEO SKOURDOUMBIS,
JOSEPH PATTI,
FRANK VARI and
MICHAEL MITTEN
Respondents

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE:

8 FEBRUARY 2002

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Litigation abounds between factions in the FFTS Union Division, a division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.  The cause of the dispute has not been explained, but an interim inquiry into the affair has been conducted by officers of the union who, in their…

Continue reading Haritou v Skourdoumbis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Haritou v Skourdoumbis [2002] FCA 116
Case
[2002] FCA 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case of Haritou v Skourdoumbis were Haritou, the applicant, and Skourdoumbis, the respondent. Haritou sought interim relief in the Supreme Court of South Australia against Skourdoumbis, who was the Chief Commissioner of Police. The dispute centred around the alleged unlawful conduct by Skourdoumbis in his capacity as Chief Commissioner, which Haritou claimed had caused significant damage to his reputation and emotional distress.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether Haritou had made out a prima facie case for interim relief, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of such relief. The court also had to consider the relevance and admissibility of certain evidence that Haritou sought to rely on, as well as the appropriate timeframes for filing and serving affidavits at trial.

In dismissing the application for interim relief, the court found that Haritou had not demonstrated a sufficiently strong case to warrant such relief at the interim stage. The court held that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of interim relief, as Skourdoumbis's position as Chief Commissioner of Police carried significant public interest considerations. The court also determined that certain evidence sought to be relied on by Haritou was inadmissible, as it was based on inadmissible hearsay. Finally, the court set strict timeframes for filing and serving affidavits at trial, with the aim of ensuring a fair and efficient trial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for interim relief be dismissed.

2. The applicant file and serve any affidavits on which it seeks to rely at trial before 4.15 pm on 22 February 2002.

3. The respondents file and serve any affidavits on which they seek to rely at trial before 4.15 pm on 8 March 2002.

4. The matter be listed for further directions after 8 March 2002.

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

FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.