McJannet, V.J. v White, H

Case [1992] FCA 437


4-33 192

JUDGMENT NO. a. n....rrr
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
) No. Q1 4 of 1992
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:  VICTORIA JANE McJANNET

First Applicant

AND :  CHARLES HENRY LIVINGSTONE

Second Applicant

AND :  MEDIA. ENTERTAINMENT AND ARTS ALLIANCE
a reqistered industrial organisation of
employees pursuant to the Industrial
Relations Act 1988

Third Applicant

AND:  HERBERT WHITE, ARTHUR WESTBROOK, JAMES
BEATTIE, MACOUARIE HAYWARD, WILLIAM MORRIS
and EDWARD EASTERN

First Respondents

AND :  QUEENSLAND BRANCH OF THE AUSTRALIAN
THEATRICAL & AMUSEMENT UNION OF EMPLOYEES

Second Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:  Spender J .
DATE OF ORDER:  5 June 1992
WHERE MADE:  Brisbane
THE COURT GRANTS LEAVE: 

1.    To the applicant to read and file the application.

2.    To the applicant to read and file the affidavit of

T. A. Allingham.

Note:  Applicant undertakes to pay full filing fees.

3.    To the respondent to read and file the affidavit of J. W. Beattie.

4.    To Mr D. Hall to intervene as counsel for the Australian Workers' Union of Employees Queensland.

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

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

5.    Any further affidavit material for the applicants to be filed and served by 4 p.m. 15 June 1992.

6 .    Any further affidavit material for the respondents to be filed and served by 4 p.m. 26 June 1992.

7 . Registrar to set the matter down for interlocutory
hearing for three days, after consultation with the
solicitors for the parties, including the
intervener, as to the availability of counsel.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

8. Costs be reserved.

NOTE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
PUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
) No. Q1 4 of 1992
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: VICTORIA JANE McJANNET

First Applicant

AND: CHARLES HENRY LIVINGSTONE

Second Applicant

AND: MEDIA. ENTERTAINMENT AND ARTS ALLIANCE

a registered industrial organisation of
employees pursuant to the Industrial

Relations Act 1988

Third Applicant

AND:  HERBERT WHITE, ARTHUR WESTBROOK, JAMES
BEATTIE, MACOUARIE HAYWARD, WILLIAM MORRIS
and EDWARD EASTERN

First Respondents

AND: QUEENSLAND BRANCH OF THE AUSTRALIAN

THEATRICAL & AMUSEMENT UNION OF EMPLOYEES

Second Respondent

M A - : Spender J.
PLACE :  Brisbane
DATE :  5 June 1992

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

It is plain from the submissions that I have heard that matter. I have to be brief because of the time of the evening.

very serious questions remain for decision in respect of this

I will not make any interim order. Having regard particularly to the provisions of s . 13.60 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Qld) it seems to me that the balance of convenience at this stage is against the making of any orders of an interim kind, and the preferable course is to give directions, the effect of which will be that, in a slightly less pressured time frame, the matter of what interlocutory orders are appropriate can be calmly and carefully considered.

If at that time interlocutory orders, the effect of which would be to bring the ballot process the subject of Commissioner Edwards' orders to a halt, are considered to be appropriate, then the court would be able to mould orders having that consequence. I do not see that any overwhelming embarrassment would result if those orders have to be directed to the Registrar of the Queensland Industrial Commission.

It seems plain to me I should not make orders on an interim basis, the effect of which would be the granting of a de facto stay of the decision by Commissioner Edwards.

As to what should be done by way of setting the matter down for the hearing of the interlocutory application, I direct that any further affidavit material on which the applicants wish to rely should be filed and served by 4 p.m. on Monday, 15 June.

Any af fidavits on which the present respondents to this

application wish to rely should be filed and served by 4 pm
Friday, 26 June.

I will ask the Registrar to set the matter down after consulting with the solicitors for all the parties, includingthe intervener, as to the availability of counsel. Out of an abundance of caution I reserve today's costs.

I certify that the preceding two pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice Spender.

Associate

Date: 5 ~ u n e &92
Counsel for the applicants Mr L. Boccabel la
instructed by Goss Downey Carne
Counsel for the respondents : Mr A. Herbert
instructed by Dillons
Counsel for the intervener Mr D. Hall
instructed by C. A. Sciacca &
Associates
Date of Hearing 5 June 1992.
Details
AGLC
McJannet, V.J. v White, H [1992] FCA 437
Case
[1992] FCA 437
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court of Australia involves Victoria Jane McJannet and Charles Henry Livingstone as applicants, with Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance as the third applicant, against Herbert White, Arthur Westbrook, James Beattie, Macouarie Hayward, William Morris, Edward Eastern as first respondents, and the Queensland Branch of the Australian Theatrical & Amusement Union of Employees as the second respondent. The applicants are seeking to challenge decisions made by Commissioner Edwards, which were based on a ballot process. The central issue before the court was whether to grant any interim orders that would halt the ballot process, given the provisions of section 13.60 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Qld). The court decided against issuing any interim orders, believing it was more prudent to allow a less pressured time frame for considering what interlocutory orders were appropriate. The court directed that further affidavits be filed by specified dates and that the Registrar consult with all parties to set a date for an interlocutory hearing.

The Federal Court of Australia considered the arguments presented by both the applicants and respondents, with a particular focus on the implications of section 13.60 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Qld). Justice Spender noted the seriousness of the questions involved and decided that the balance of convenience did not favour interim orders that would effectively halt the ballot process. The court opted to give directions that would allow for a more thorough examination of the issues at a later date. This approach was deemed preferable to making hasty interim orders that could potentially cause significant disruption. The court also directed the timing for further affidavits to be filed and instructed the Registrar to consult with the parties to schedule the interlocutory hearing. Justice Spender reserved costs from this hearing to be determined at a later stage.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.