Hill v St Anthony's Tennis Club

In *Hill v St Anthony's Tennis Club*, the applicant, Mr Hill, sought interlocutory relief from the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Hill, through his company AJH Leisure Pty Ltd, had a contract with the respondent, St Anthony's Tennis Club (SATC), to provide tennis court management services. SATC terminated this contract after Mr Hill lodged applications with the Fair Work Commission alleging bullying and contravention of general protection provisions under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). Mr Hill alleged that the termination of his contract was in contravention of section 340 of the *Fair Work Act*.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Hill had a reasonably arguable case that he possessed standing to seek relief concerning the contract's termination. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Mr Hill had a reasonably arguable case that SATC contravened section 340 of the *Fair Work Act*, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of interlocutory relief, specifically an injunction for the reinstatement of the contract.

Manousaridis J found that Mr Hill had a reasonably arguable case that SATC terminated the contract for reasons that included, as a substantial and operative factor, Mr Hill's lodging of applications with the Fair Work Commission. Consequently, his Honour was satisfied that Mr Hill had a reasonably arguable claim for relief under section 545(1) of the *Fair Work Act* based on a contravention of section 340. However, when considering the balance of convenience, the court determined that any prejudice Mr Hill might suffer if no injunction was granted, but he succeeded at a final hearing, would be adequately compensated by an order for compensation. The court also weighed the prejudice SATC would suffer if an injunction were granted, including the engagement of a new service provider, and noted the delay in commencing proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Mr Hill's application for an interlocutory injunction.