Meneling Station Pty Ltd v A.M.I.E.U

[1987] FCA 51

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH W E S DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 No. I9 of 1987
1
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: MENELING STATION FTY

LIMITED

Applicant

m:	AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY
EMPLOYEES UNION

Respondent

COURT	:	BOWEN C.J.
W:	11 February, 1987

PLACE : Sydney

M TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This 1s a notlce of motion brought by Meneling Station

Pty Limited against the Australasian Meat Industry Employees

Unlon for an order that execution and ~udgment given by Evatt J

in this Court on 14 January 1987 between those two parties be

stayed pendlng the determination of an appeal which has been

lodged, and seeking an order for costs.

The ~udgment in questlon ordered that pursuant to

section 119 of the Conciliation and Arbltration Act, 1904,

pecuniary penalties be imposed on Menellng Station Pty Limited in

four respects: (a) $750 for breach of Clause 23(c) of the

i; 3.

stay. This is sometlmes put on the basis of showing special or

exceptional circumstances or, as was put in Alexander v Cambridse

Credit Corporation Limited (1985) 2 NSWLR 685, that it is "an

appropriate case", without laying down what are the limits of

appropriate cases. Where of course the subject matter of the

appeal which is in question wlll disappear unless a stay be

granted, there is an obvious case to hold the position so that

the fruits of the appeal wlll not be lost; or if the positions of

the parties are going to alter dramatically in some fashion, then

there may be a case made out for a stay so that the appeal which

is given by right is not rendered nugatory. This case does not fall into those categorles where the position of the appellant

will be defeated if a stay be not granted.

I dld ask counsel for the applicant whether he asserted

that the Union would not be able to repay the moneys if the

appeal were successful in this or any other hlgher cdurt. He did

not assert that the Union would not be able to repay the money in

those clrcumstances.

There was a further complexlty in that the cases

relating to stays mostly deal wlth civil proceedings. These are

unusual proceedings where not only are they under the

Conciliation and Arbitration Act but they are proceedmgs for a

penalty, where the judge has a right given to hlm to order

payment to one of the parties and has done so. In that sense the

successful party has what is normally referred to In the cases