Squires, R.J. v Stephenson, K

[1981] FCA 93

P r a c t i c e - procedure - a p p l i c a t i o n by responclenrs f o r

change o f venue .. p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i c a b l e - possible adve r sz

e f f e c t o f change of venue U ~ O T L applicaTxt s a p p l i c a t i c n f o r

f irancial assistance by Commonwealth - pr'i:icipLes applicable -

I N THE PEDEFAL COURT OF ADSTZALIA )

-- _-__

)

V I C T O R I A	D T S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	j V . No.	G of 1 9 8 1
1

--	I N D U S T R I A L	D I V I S I O N	)
IN THE MATTER of t h e
C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n
A c t 1 9 0 4
AND I N THE MATTER of
a p p l i c a t i o n s u n d e r Sect ions
140 and 141 Of t h e S d i d A c t

I’

BETWEEN: RICHARD JAMES SQUIRES

A p p l i c a n t

AND:

R e s p o n d e n t s

-- ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: KEELY J .

WHERE NADE: DATE OF ORDER: - Melbourne

-. 7 J u l y 1981

THE COURT O R D E M T 3 A T : I-

1. P a r t of t h e proceedings , namely the h e a r l n g u n t i l t h e

b ~_.., ~ . - Ail. .

I - - - - . . . - ~ .- . . . __.., . - _. ” - . .. - - . . . - . . - ,.

/+

* .c

<\ /

2,

c l o s e	of	t h e	c a s e	f o r	t h e	r e s p o n d e n t s ,	s h a l l	be	conducted	in
Sydney.

2. L i b e r t y t o a p p l y r e s e r v e d t o a l l p a r t i e s upon n o t l e s s

t h a n t h r e e d a y s ‘ w r i t t e n n o t i c e t o a l l o t h e r p a r t i e s .

3 . The p a r t i e s s h a l l a r r a n g e w i t h t h e R e g i s t r a r a d a t e f o r

hea r ing .

/

I N	T H E	F E D E R A L	C O U R T	O F	A U S T R A L I A	)
1

V I C T O R I A D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y ) V. No. 6 of 1 9 8 1 )

D I V I S I O N	I N D U S T R I A L	1
IN THE MATTER of t h e
C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n
A c t 1 9 0 4 AND IN THE MATTER of
a p p l i c a t i o n s under Sections.
1 4 0 and 1 4 1 of t h e s a i d Act

> ,

BETWEEN: RICHARD JAMES SQUIRES

A p p l i c a n t

AND:

.

R e s p o n d e n t s

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

7 J u l y 1 9 8 1 KEELY J.

R i c h a r d James Squires ( t h e a p p l i c a n t ) i s a member of t h e

F l i g h t S t e w a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n o f A u s t r a l i a ( t h e r e s p o n d e n t

o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , an o r g a n i z d t i o n of employees regis tered under t h e

i

* .

L -L>..". ..' _I- . .- .- . .__ - .. ~~. . -,. -. - . -. .. - _.. . . . -.. ... ... - LA . i :

+

.l	c
i

? .

l 2 .

C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 0 4 ( t h e A c t ) . The respondent

Smith i s and was a t a l l m a t e r i a l t i m e s t h e f e d e r a l s e c r e t a r y of

t he r e sponden t o rgan iza t ion . Mr Smi th gave v idence tha t the

l

I	i n d i v i d u a l	r e s p o n d e n t s	c o n s t i t u t e	h	w h o l e	e	o f	t h e	e l e c t e d
!

o f f i c e r s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n . On 30 A p r i l 1 9 8 1 t h e

f e d e r a l c o u n c i l o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n c a r r i e d a

r e s o l u t i o n :

"That i n accordance w i t h Rule 21(h) and 1 2 A ( m ) ( i i i)

Mr. Squ i re s be fined,,$20.00 and suspended f o r one

month,	t h i s	s u s p e n s i o n	t o	a k e	e f f e c t	J u n e	1,
1 9 8 1 ."

On 4 May 1 9 8 1 an order was made by Northrop J. c a l l i n g

upon each of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o show cause why o rde r s shou ld no t

be made under s . 1 4 0 and s.141 of the Act , which orders included

the fo l lowing:

"l. That the respondents and each of them ( o t h e r

t han F l igh t p e r f o r m S ewards ' Assoc la t ion of A u s t r a l i a )

or o b s e r v e t h e r u l e s t h e o f s a i d

o r g a n i s a t i o n by t r e a t i n g a s null and void and of no

l e g a l e f f e c t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t h e A p p l i c a n i

p u r p o r t e d l y l a i d in accordance w i t h Rule 2 1 of t h e

r u l e s of t h e s a i d o r g a n i s a t i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n a

l e t t e r t o t h e , A p p l i c a n t d d t e d t h e e i g h t e e n t h d a y of

March 1 9 8 1 s igned on behal f o f the respondents by

the respondent Smlth;

2. That the respondents and each of them ( o t h e r

t h a n F l i g h t p e r f o r m Stewards ' Assoc ia t ion of A u s t r a l i a )

o r o b s e r v e t h e r u l e s t h e o f s a i d

o r g a n l s a t i o n by t r e a t i r q a s n u l l and void and of no

l e g a l e f f e c t so much of the proceedings of t h e

m e e t i n g s o f t h e F e d e r a l C o u n c i l o f t h e s a i d

o rgan i sa t ion he ld on t h e s i x t e e n t h d a y of March and

t h e s e v e n t h , April t w e n t y - f i r s t and t h i r t i e t h d a y s of

1 9 8 1 a s p u r p o r t e d t o d e a l w i t h t he cha rge

a g a i n s t t h e A p p l i c a n t p u r p o r t e d l y l a i d i n

1 ,., . 1_

i ' .

1.

accordance w i t h R u l e 2 1 o f t h e r u l e s o f t h e s a i d

o r g a n i s a t i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n a l e t t e r t o t h e

App l i can t da t ed t he i gh teen th day of March 1 9 8 1

s i g n e d on b e h a l f 9f t h e r s p o n d e n t s b y t h e

respondent S m i t h ;

3 . That the respondents and each of them ( o t h e r

than F l igh t p e r f o r m S ewards ' Assoc ia t ion of A u s t r a l i a )

o r o b s e r v e t h e r u l e s o f t h e s a i d

o r g a n i s a t i o n by :

( a ) T r e a t i n g and desc r ib ing t he App l i can t fo r a l l

p u r p o s e s o f t h e r u l e s a s a f i n a n c l a l member

of t h e s a i d o r g a n i s a t i o n ;

(b) Ref ra in ing f ron desc r ib ing t he App l i can a s t a

person who had resigned from embership o r

been suspended ur expelled from membership in

t h e s a i d o r g a n i s a t i o n or who had been or

shou ld be d i sc ip l ined by Federal Council of

t h e s a i d o r g a n i s a t i o n . "

O n 5 June 1981, a f te r hear ing ev idence and argument on a

n o t i c e of motion by t h e a p p l i c a n t , I made the fo l lowing i n t e r im

orders under s.141(2) of the Act :

"(1) That pending t h e hea r ing and de te rmina t ion of

t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e s p o n d e n t t r e a t a s n u l l and

void and of no l e g a l e f f e c t t h e p u r p o r t e d d i r e c t i v e

- t h e o f F e d e r a l C o u n c i l t h e R o f s p o n d e n t

Organ iza t ion r e fek red t o i n t h e s p e c i a l news s h e e t

o f t he o rgan iza t ion da ted 2 2 May 1 9 8 1 s igned by t h e

respondent Smith as fol lows:

' D i r e c t i v e F e d e r a l C o u n c i l d i r e c t s a l l FSAA

members n o t o o p e r a t e w i t h Mr R J S q u i r e s

should h e b e r o s t e r e d a s a cabin crew member

in any category for a period of one month

commenclng June 1, 1 9 8 1 . F u r t h e r , s u c h

d i r e c t i v e a p p l i e s w o r l d w i d e . '

( 2 ) That t h e respondent S m i t h communicate the

te rms of the foregoing in te r im order o f the Cour t

t o e a c h member of the respondent o rganiza t ion by

p re -pa id o rd ina ry pos t o be addres sed and posted

t o e a c h s u c h nember a t h i s home a d d r e s s a s

a p p e a r i n g in t h e r c o r d s t h e o f r s p o n d e n t

o r g a n i z a t i o n , such post ing L0 t a k e p l a c e in Sydney

4 .

in t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r e s e n c e t h e a p p l i c a n t o f o r h i s

no l a t e r t h a n 5 pm on Wednesday, 10

June 1981.

( 3 ) That pending t h e hea r ing and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of

t he p roceed ings t he r e sponden t s and each of them

l s h a l l n o t a d v i s e , e n c o u r a g e o r i n c i t e Q a n t a s

Ai rways L imi t ed t o t ake any ac t ion t o i n ju re t he

a p p l i c a n t i n h i s employment or a l t e r h i s p o s i t i o n

to h i s p r e ~ u d i c e .

( 4 ) That pending the hear ing .and de te rmina t ion o f

t he p roceed ings t he r e sponden t s and each of them

s h a l l n o t t a k e or t h r e a t e n t o t a k e a n y a c t i o n

h a v i n g t h e e f f e c t , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y o f

p r e j u d i c i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t in h i s employment.

(5) T h a t l i b e r t y t o app ly be r s e rved t o he

a p p l i c a n t on 2 4 h o u r s ' n o t i c e t o t h e respondents . "

J

Those orders were made l a t e t h a t a f t e r n o o n and were

accompanied by b r i e f r ea sons fo r t he o rde r s , wh ich I s h a l l now

e l a b o r a t e a t t h e r e q u e s t of Mr Kenzie of counsel , who appeared

i

f o r a l l th t . respondents . Mr B . Shaw Q.C. apppeared w i t h M r T.

G innane , of counse l , fo r t h e a p p l i c a n t .

By l e t t e r d a t e d 1 May 1 9 8 1 the respondent S m i t h w r o t e t o

the app l i can t i n fo rming him t h a t t h e f e d e r a l c o u n c i l had on 30

A p r i l 1 9 8 1 imposed on him " a p e n a l t y o f $ 2 0 . 0 0 f i n e and i n

a d d i t i o n t o a period of one months suspension from membership of

t h e A s s o c i a t i o n t a k i n g e f f e c t from June 1, 1 9 8 1 " . The l e t t e r

p o i n t e d o u t t he dec i s ion wh ich appea l " sha l l t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t had t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l a g a i n s t

be made w i t h i n one month of t h e

d e c i s i o n a p p e a l e d a g a i n s t " . Mr Smith enclosed w i t h t h e l e t t e r a

copy of ( Q a n t a s ) on a l e t t e r he ad wr i t t en t o Qan tas A i rways L imi t ed

t h e same day , which read as fo l lows:

i - - .."_

__ . .. . .-

5.

"May 1, 1 9 8 1 .

Mr. C . S . King,

S e n i o r I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s O f f i c e r , R e f : WBS.468

Qantas Airways Limited,

70 H u n t e r S t r e e t ,

SYDNEY. 2 0 0 0 .

Dear S i r ,

D i s c i p l i n e o f Members.

r Re: R . J . S q u i r e s .

F e d e r a l C o u n c i l , a t cl meeting held in the boardroom

t h e o f F . S . A . A . o f f i c e on A p r i l 3 0 , 1981 ,

cons idered charges made a g a i n s t one R . J . S q u i r e s ,

' i n a b s e n t i a ' , in accordance w i t h A s s o c i a t i o n r u l e

2 1 paragraph 4 'Discipl ine of Members ' .

Mr. S q u i r e s h a s been found g u i l t y o f a s e r i o u s

breach of the Assoc ia t ion ru l e s . Accord ing ly he

w i l l be suspended from Association membership for a

per iod of	one	month ,	t ak ing	e f fec t	f rom	June	1,
1981.

Be a d v i s e d , t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f s u s p e n s i o n ,

t h a t no member of t h e F .S .A .A. should be asked by

t Q a n t a s t o o p e r a t e w i t h Mr. S q u i r e s . To do so would

i n v i t e u n f o r t u n a t e i n c i d e n t s w h i c h would be counter

p r o d u c t i v e t o Q a n t a s and t h i s orgclnisat ion.

Yours f a i t h f u l l y ,

i

.	Warren B. Smith.
Federa l Secre ta ry ."

I t W ,ill b e n o t e d t h a t t h e l e t t e r d i d n o t s u g g e s t t h a t t h e

members had b e e n d i r e c t e d n o t t o o p e r a t e w i t h Nr S q u i r e s b u t d i d

" adv i se" Qan tas not t o a s k members t o work w i t h t h e a p p l i c a n t

and t h a t " t o do SO would i n v i t e u n f o r t u n a t e i n c i d e n t s " . Mr

1

Squires gave evidence that he had been away from A u s t r a l i a f o r

seven days and d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e l e t t e r and i t s e n c l o s u r e

? u n t i l about 10 May 1981 .

, ..,

6.

The r e sponden t Smi th sa id in e v i d e n c e t h a t h e sent t o a l l

members of t h e associat ion (approximately 1800) on 22 May 1981 a

" S p e c i a l News Sheet" which read as fo l lows:

" F l i g h t S t e w a r d s ' Associat ion of A u s t r a l i a

SPECIAL

NEWS SHEET

May 22, 1981.

I'

DISCIPLINE OF' MEMBERS:

- RE: R . J . SQUIRES.

Dear Member,

Federa l Counci l , at a meet ing held Apri l 3 0 , 1981,

in the boardroom of the F.S.A.A. o f f i c e , c o n s i d e r e d

. c h a r g e s made a g a i n s t t h e abovenamed member of t h e

Assoc ia t ion .

The charge V ice -Pres iden t , was l a i d by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s J u n i o r

Pe t e r J acobs and r e d s as fo l lows :

'Mr. Warren Smith,

F.S.A.A.

-.

Dear S i r ,

I w i s h t o c h a r g e Mr. R i c k S q u i r e s w i t h

advoca t ing d i sobed ience o f a l a w f u l d e c i s i o n

o f Fede ra l Counc l l , i n cha t he inc luded i n a

telegram, 'addressed t o t h e F e d e r a l S e c r e t a r y ,

a d v i s i n g h i s n t e n t i o n t o r e s ign f rom the

membership of t h e F l i g h t S t e w a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n ,

the fo l lowing words "NatUrdl ly it f o l l o w s t h a t

I w i l l b e o f f e r i n g my services t o Qan tas

f o r t h w i t h " . The above charge i s made i n

accordance wi th c lause 2 1 - D i s c i p l i n e oE

Members, paragraph ( A ) s u b - p a r a g r a p h ( i v ) .

A t t h e time of Mr. S q u z r e s o f f e r o f h i s

s e r v i c e s t o Q a n t a s , t h e A s s o c i a t i o n was

involved i n a well p u b l i c i s e d d i s p u t e w i t h

Qantas during which a l l members o f t h e F l i g h t

l .

Stewdrds Assoc ia t ion were r equ i r ed t o r e fuse

t o o p e r a t e t h e S.P. Var ian t when r e p o r t i n g fo r

d u t y . Such a c t i o n in accordance w i t h t h e

d i r ec t ion o f t he Fede ra l Counc i l by n e c e s s i t y

l ed t o t he s t andown o f s eve ra l hundred P l igh t

Stewards.

I t is my b e l i e f t h a t Mr. Squires should be

d i s c i p l i n e d f o r h i s a c t i o n s a s o u t l i n e d by him

i . e . t h e u n q u a l i f i e d l y o f f e r i n g of h i s s e r v i c e s t o Q a n t a s

and f o r t h w i t h .

Yours f a i t h f u l l y ,

P.M. Jacobs . '

A t t h e cons idered and m e e t i n g of A p r i l 3 0 t h e m a t t e r was

the fo l lowing r e s o l u t i o n p a s s e d :

'THAT i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Rule 21(h) an2

12A(m)(iii) Mr. Squi res be f ined $ 2 0 . 0 0 and

suspended for one month, t h i s s u s p e n s i o n t o

t a k e e f f e c t J u n e 1, 1 9 8 1 ' .

DIRECTIVE:

F e d e r a l C o u n c i l d i r e c t s a l l F . S . A . A . members n o t t o

o p e r a t e w i t h Mr. R . J . Squires should he be rostered

as a cabin crew member in any category, f o r a

per iod of one month commencing J u n e 1, 1 9 8 1 .

Fu r the r , such d i r ec t ive app l i e s wor ldwide .

Mr. S q u i r e s h a s commenced p r o c e e d i n g s in t h e

F e d e r a l C o u r t a g a i n s t t h e A s s o c i a t i o n a n d a l l

members of Federal Council seeking , among ot.her

t h i n g s , o r d e r s cha l l eng ing t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e

r e s o l u t i o n of Federal Counci l of Apri l 3 0 , 1981.

Members w i l l be advised of proceedings.

Y o u r s f a i t h f u l l y ,

WarGen B. S m i t h .

F e d e r a l S e c r e t a r y . "

M r Smi th gave ev idence tha t t h e d i r e c t i v e t h e r e s e t o u t

was c a r r i e d by r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u n c i l a t i t s meeting

on 2 2 May 1981. Be fo re t ha t ime Mr Smith ad a s a respondent

!

been served w i t h and had read what were descr ibed as the "cour t

v

8

papers" i n t h i s m a t t e r . In a d d i t i o n he and each of t h e o t h e r

respondents	had	on	1 4 May	1 9 8 1 entered '	an	appearance	by	a
s o l i c i t o r .

It was conceded by Mr K e n z i e t h a t no " l e t t e r o r o t h e r

w r i t i n g " e x i s t e d by which Mr Smith haci " a t any t ime p r io r t o 30

A p r i l 1 9 8 1 communicated t o t h e a p p l i c a n t t h e terms o f t he

wr i t i ng s igned 'P.M. J a c o b s ' s e t o u t on page 1 of S p e c i a l News

I

Shee t da ted May 2 2 , 1981" which appears above. Reference t o t h e

S p e c i a l News Shee t shows cha t t ha t "wr i t i ng" cons t i t u t ed t he

" c h a r g e l a i d by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s J u n i o r V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , P e t e r

J a c o b s " a g a i n s t h e a p p l i c a n t . I t was the cha rge cons ide red d t

t h e meeting on 30 A2ril 1981 of t he f de ra l counc i l wh ich

i

ca r r i ed t he r e so lu t ion quo ted above .

I t was not sugges ted by counse l fo r a n y p a r t y t h a t h e

i

p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o i n t e r i m o r d e r s w e r e d i f f e r e n t from

those enuncia ted . by t h e F u l l Court of t h e H i g h Court in -- Beecham

Group Ltd v. B r i s t o l L a b o r a t o r i e s P t y L t d ( 1 9 6 8 ) 1 1 8 C . L . R . 6 1 8 ,

n a m e l y , t h a t t h e c o u r t m u s t c cns ide r bo th p r ima e f c i e

s t r e n g t h t h e o f a p p l i c a n t ' s c l a i m a n d t h e b a l a n c e O f

convenience. In World S e r i e s C r i c k e t P e t d v . P a r i s h ( 1 9 7 7 )

1 6 A.L .R . 181 Bower1 C . J . a p p l i e d t h e p r i n c i p l e s s e t o u t in

Beecham's Case (supra) but. ( a t p.186-187) added:

"Proceedings under the Trade Pract ices Act have a

s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r in t h a t h e A c t d e a l s w i t h t h e

p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . . .

. .' 9 .

...

That i s n o t t o s a y t h a t t h e r e a r e n o t s p e c i a l

f a c t o r s t o be t aken i n to accoun t when e x e r c i s i n g

j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s A c t ,

S p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e s p e c t w i t h t o

i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s a p p l y in o t h e r f i e l d s

i n c l u d i n g common l a w i n - ~ u n c t i o n s t o r e s t r a i n

d e f a m a t i o n , i n j u n c t i o n s t o r e s t r a i n b r e a c h o f a

p a t e n t a n d i n j u n c t i o n s t o r e s t r a i n b r e a c h o f

c o p y r i g h t . In t h e same way s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

w i l l a r i s e under the Trade Prac t ices Act, and r.he

C o u r t w i l l n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y a l l of t h e

p r i n c i p l e s which a c o u r t o f e q u i t y would apply i n a

s u i t w h e r e o n l y i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s o f p r i v a t e

l i t i g a n t s were in issue."

I'

S p e c i a l f a c t o r s may s i m i l a r l y need t o be t aken i n to accoun t i n

e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make interim orders under s.140 o r

s.141 of the Act which l ike , the Trade Prac t ices Act , i s a l s o

concerned w i t h t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . However, no such f a c t o r s

. were suggested by any p a r t y i n t h e h e a r i n g of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r interim o r d e r s .

M r Kenz ie d id no t con tend t ha t t he app l i can t had no t

shown a p r ima f ac i e case wi th in the mean ing o f t hose p r inc ip l e s .

I a c c e p t M r Shawls submiss ion tha t it is p r o p e r f o r t h e c o u r t ,

in e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t o h a v e r e g a r d t o t h e s t r e n g t h o f

t h a t p r i m a argument f a c i e c a s e . I have no t had the bene f i t o f any

from M r K e n z i e a s t o t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h a t p r i m a f a c i e

c a s e . B e c a u s e t h e s e a r e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r i n t e r i m o r d e r s i t is

d e s i r a b l e t h a t I should not form any concluded views as to the

ev idence or a s t o t h e i s s u e s in t h e p roceed ings , b u t on t h e

e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a t t h i s s t a g e i t is a s t rong pr ima

f a c i e c a s e . I c o n s i d e r t h a t i f t h e v i d e n c e r e m a i n s a s i t i s

c

1 0 .

t h e r e i s a p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t w i l l b e h e l d e n t i t l e d

to succeed .

There is e v i d e n c e t h a t on 1 J u n e 1 9 8 1 t h e a p p l i c a n t was

t o l d by o t h e r members of t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t t h e y

had been r epor t ed d i r e c t e d t o walk o f f t h e a i r c r a f t when t h e a p p l i c a n t

fo r du ty t he fo l lowing day : t he app l i can t t e l ephoned

h i s s o l i c i t o r , Mr A . J . Macken, on 1 June 1 9 8 1 and on t h e

fo l London, lowing day wen t t o the a i rpo r t fo r t he f l i gh t f rom Bahra in to

on which f l i g h t h e 6;s to have been sen ior s teward . Mr

K e n z i e s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t d i s p u t e t h a t , a s a r e s u l t of t h e

d i r e c t i v e , t h e a p p l i c a n t , who wished to work, was no t a l lowed to

do so .

In opposing t h e c l a i m f o r i n t e r i m o r d e r s Mr Kenzie sa13

t h a t :

" t h e d e l a y t h a t h a s t a k e n p l a c e i n t h e commencement

o f ' the p roceedings insofar as they concern the

interim order i s a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r b e c a u s e it has

fundamenta l ly a f fec ted the ba lance of convenience .

I t h a s t h e y a r e o f f i b e r s . " a f f e c t e d it in such a way a s t o p r e j u d i c e

the r e sponden t s or a t l e a s t t h e u r l i o n s o f w h i c h

As t o t h e d e l a y , M r Kenz ie d id no t sugges t ha t he app l i can t

shou ld have sough t i n t e r im o rde r s a t he t ime when he obtained

from Northrop d i r e c t i v e J. t h e r u l e t o show cause . A t t h a t t i m e t h e

t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s members had not been

reso lved upon by f e d e r a l c o u n c i l . Mr Kenzie submi t ted tha t he

11.

delay began l e t t e r from Mr when, on 10 May 1 9 8 1 , t h e a p p l i c a n t r e c e i v e d t h e

Smi th enc los ing a c o p y o f t h e l e t t e r t o Q a n t a s .

Mr Kenzie argued that i t was open t o t h e a p p l i c a n t t o f i l e and

s e r v e a n o t i c e of motion a t t h a t s t a g e i n s t e a d o f w a i t i n g u n t i l

2 June 1981.

i

Under s k i l f u l c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n by Mr Kenzie, Mr S q u i r e s

a s s e n t $ d t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t a f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e l e t t e r from

Mr S m i t h 011 10 May 1981 h e knew t h a t on 1 June 1981 the s ther

members would r e f u s e t o wogk w i t h h im. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o

understand how t h e a p p l i c a n t c o u l d "know" on 10 May 1981 what

was going t o happen on 1 June 1981, but he may have i n t e rp re t ed

t h e q u e s t i o n "know". by Mr Kenzie as meaning "be l ieve" ra ther than

I n re-examinat ion he gave the fol lowing evidence:

"Can you t e l l u s when b e f o r e t h a t t i m e , ( i . e . 2

June 1 9 8 1 ) i f it was b e f o r e t h a t i n e , when

you f i r s t f e l t y o u r s e l f t h a t t h a t was going

t o happen?---I do not think I e v e r r e a l l y

k n e w b e f o r e t h a t t i m e t h a t was going t o

happen, I was no t convinced t h a t a l l t h e

members would r e f u s e t o o p e r a t e w i t h me."

Desp i t e he answer i s no t an improbable ea r l i e r answer in c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e l a t t e r

one, having regard t o t h e f a c t t h a t ,

as Alexander Pope expressed i t , " h o p e s p r i n g s e t e r n a l in t h e

human b r e a s t " . For t h e pu rpose o f t he app l i ca t ion fo r i n t e r im

o r d e r s I accep t i t a s b e i n g t r u e .

In my o p i n i o n t h e a p p l i c a n t , a s an i n d i v i d u a l i t i g a n t

i

1 2 .

who had a p p l i e d f o r f i n a n c i d l a s s i s t a n c e in the conduct o f t h e

l i t i ga t ion , cou ld no t have been r easonab ly expec ted t o ac t more

q u i c k l y in d e c i d i n g t o t a k e f u r t h e r s t e p s by way of seeking

interim o r d e r s , t h e r e b y i n c u r r i n g f u r t h e r l e g a l c o s t s . I do no t

c o n s i d e r t h a t in a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e a p p l i c a n t was g u i l t y

o f d e l a y s u f f i c i e n t t o l u s t i f y t h e c o u r t in i ts d i s c r e t i o n

r e f u s i n g t o g r d n t i n t e r i m o r d e r s .

In	t h i s c o n n e c t i o n	I	do not	cons ider	t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f
I'

E v a t t J . in Cook v. Crawford and o t h e r s (unreported judgment

d e l i v e r e d 1 4 September 1 9 7 9 ) s u p p o r t s M r Kenzie 's argument

hav ing r ega rd t o t he d i f f e ren t c i r cums tances t he re be fo re t he

c o u r t . M a t t e r s e f e r r e d t o by Eva t t J . i n c l u d e d ( a ) t h e

a p p l i c a n t had advanced no a rgumen t a s t o t he s t r eng th o f t he

case for showing a d e n i a l o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e ; ( b ) d e s p i t e t h e

d e c i s i o n t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h e a p p l i c a n t s t i l l

r e t a i n e d o f f i c e w i t h i n the S ta te Union; and (c ) the hear ing of

t h e main c a s e was due t o commence in three weeks. These mat ters

may be con t r a s t ed w i t h t h e p r e s e n t c a s e w h e r e ( a ) t h e a p p l i c a n t

has shown a s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e ; ( b ) i f t h e d i r e c t i v e i s

obeyed the appl icant will probably be prevented from working;

and ( c ) no d a t e had - or h a s y e t - been f ixed for the main

h e a r i n g . In any even t , an ea r ly hea r ing cou ld no t have r e su l t ed

in a "suspens ion" judgment a t a t i m e t h a t w o u l d h a v e p r e v e n t e d t h e

fo r t h e month of June 1 9 8 i from operat ing. Only

i n t e r i m o r d e r s c o u l d h a v e t h d t e f f e c t .

.!

1 3 .

Mr Kenz ie a l so c i t ed an unrepor ted dec is ion in Roots v.

Mutton of Smithers, Evatt and Northrop JJ. on 22 December 1 9 7 7

on a n p p l i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r i m o r d e r s . However, I n do t

c o n s i d e r t h a t h a t j u d g m e n t of t h e F u l l Cour t e s t ab l i shes any

p r i n c i p l e which , r e q u i r e s me t o e x e r c i s e my d i s c r e t i o n a q a i n s t

t h e a p p l i c a n t in t h i s case . There , t h e F u l l Cour t dec ided t ha t

t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s c a s e was n o t so s t r o n g t h a t i t ought on ba lance

t o o v e r r u l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f c o n v e n i e n c e r a i s e d b y t h e

r e sponden t s , Those cons ide ra t ions i nc luded t he F u l l C o u r t ' s

,'

v i e w t h a t , i f it made interim o r d e r s and the respondents were

u l t i m a t e l y t o s u c c e e d , t h e n t h e p e n a l t y imposed on t h e a p p l i c a n t

would be i l l u s o r y .

T h i s l a t t e r a s p e c t was touched on b r i e f l y i:] t h e

arguments before me b u t I do n o t f i n d it n e c e s s a r y t o d e c i d e

whether the suspension of one month could be mdde t o o p e r a t e a t

!

a l a t e r d a t e i f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s u c c e e d a t t h e t r i a l o f t h e

a c t i o n on t h a t a s p e c t . However, I s h o u l d p o i n t o u t t h a t , i f t h e

/

l e g a l e f f e c t o f t h e ru les i s , a s M r Kenz ie submi t t ed , t ha t he

d a t e f i x e d f o r t h e s u s p e n s i o n ( n a m e l y , 1 June 1 9 8 1 ) cannot be

a l t e r e d , t h e n s i m i l a r p r o b l e m s would have been encountered if

t h e a p p l i c a n t had e x e r c i s e d h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l on t h e l a s t d a y

of the per iod of one month a l lowed to him unde r t he ru l e s .

Perhaps I should add tha t I do not regard Thompson and o t h e r s v .

Townsend and o thers ( 1 9 7 9 ) 3 8 F.L.R. 1 4 3 a s u p p o r t i n g Mr

Kenzie's submissions on e i t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n or on d i s c r e t i o n .

.

14.

Although I h a v e r e f e r r e d t o t h o s e c a s e s c i t e d by Mr

Kenzie in t h e course of h i s well prepared and ab ly p re sen ted

argument for t he r e sponden t s , i n my op in ion it i s n o t d e s i r a b l e

f o r t h e r e l i e d c o u r t t o s e e k t o compare t h e v a r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

upon by counse l w i t h o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e f e r r e d t o by

a c o u r t in an e a r l i e r c a s e in g r a n t i n g o r r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t

i n t e r i m o r d e r s . As L u s h J. s a i d in S l a t e r Walker S ~ r a n n u a t i o l i

P t y L t d v . G r e a t B o u l d e r G o l d M i n e s L t G [l9791 V . K . 107 a t

-I_- -

p.110:

I )

" T h e w e i g h t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s g b e v a r i o u s t h t o v e n t o

shown by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s t o b e

r e l e v d n t will v a r y from c a s e t o c a s e . . . . The

a u t h o r i t i e s r e f e r t o t h e u s e o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n f o r

t h e p u r p o s e ma in ta in iug o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s t a t u s CIUO o r

a s t a t e o f a f f a l r s w h m on t h e

ba lance of convenience appropr la te to be mdintained

u n t i l t h e i r r e p a r a b l e r a l . T h e y r e f e r a v o i d i n g t o

harm t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . . . . T'hcre will

be o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s in which thodgn the p l a in t i f f ' S

proof of h i s r i g h t s or the in f r ingement o f them is

n o t s t r o n g , an i n j u n c t i o n may be granted because t o

withhold i t would d o t h e p l a i n t i f f i r r e p a r a b l e

harm, w h i l e t o g r a n t it would n o t g r e a t l y i n j u r e

the defendan t . The p o s s i b l e v a r i e t y o f s i t u a t i o n s

is un l imi t ed . "

The F u l l Cour t o f the Vic tor idn Supreme Court i n Magna Al loys - &

- Research Pty L t d v . ko f fey and --I o t h e r s 119811 V . R . 2 3 a t p . 2 8

adop ted t ha t s t a t emen t " a s a c o r r e c t and use fu l s t a t emen t o f

law". In my opin ion t h i s i s a case where t h e cour t shou ld make

i n t e r i m o r d e r s " f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s t a t u s q u o ,

or e s t a b l i s h i n g or ma in ta in ing a stsite o f a f f a i r s which i s on

the ba l ance o f conven ience appropr i a t e t o be ma in ta ined u n t i l

t h e t r i a l " .

The inconven ience to t h e a p p l i c a n t i f i r i t e r im orders were

n o t made was o b v i o u s a t t h e time of t h e h e a r i n g ; t h e " d i r e c t i v e "

o f t h e d e r a l c o u n c i l - w h i c h s p e c i f i c a l l y s a i d t h a t i t

"appl ies wor ldwide" - was l i k e l y t o r e s u l t in t h e members o f t h e

r e sponden t o rgan iza t ion r e fus ing to work w i t h t h e a p p l l c a n t - a s

t hey had one a t Bahra in Notwi ths tanding . Mr Kenzie 's argument

t h a t o n l y a smal l per iod of time was involved (because the

a p p l i c a n t was to begin annual l eave on 1 5 June 1981) in my

I'

o p i n i o n t h e r e would be a v e r y c l e a r c a s e of i n c o n v e n i e n c e t o t h e

a p p l i c a n t . I t is a ve ry s e r ious ma t t e fo r r an employee t o be

faced w i t h a s i t u a t i o n where the members of h i s own unioll r e f u s e

t o work w i t h h i m . Shor tness o f the per iod involved oes not

make t h i s d minor inconvenience. As t o t h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e t o t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s , Mr K e n z i e r e l i e d u p o n t h e l i k e l y c o s t ( s o m e

$800-$900) t o them or t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o l l if all

9 - interim order were made in the t rms of o rde r 2 , r e q u i r i n g t h e

expend i tu re o f money on pos t age , inter a l i a . I a c c e p t Mr Shaw's

i

a r g u m e n t t h a t n y e x p e n s e t h a t will b e i n c u r r e d b y t h e

respondents in complying w i t h t h e i n t e r i m o r d e r c a n b e f a i r l y

s a i d t o b e a n e x p e n s e d i r e c t l y r e s u l t i n g froin t h e a c t i o n o f t h e

respondent S m i t h , i n accordance w i t h t h e r s o l d k i o n of t h e

f e d e r a l c o u n c i l c a r r i e d on 2 2 May 1 9 8 1 , in s e n d i n g t h e d i r e c t i v e

t o t h e members o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n on 2 2 May 1981.

A t t ha t ime t he r e sponden t s knew t h a t a judge of t h i s

c o u r t had g ran ted a L u l e c a l l i n g upon each of them t o show

I

c

1 6 .

c a u s e , i n t e r a l i a , why o rde r s hou ld no t be made by t h e c o u r c

t h a t t h e e f f e c t b o t h r e s p o n d e n t s t r e a t a s n u l l and void and of no l e g a l

t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e a p p l i c a n t dnd the p roceed lngs

I a t m e e t i n g s o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u n c i l and a l s o t o show cause why an

order should not be made by t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s

I

r e f r a i n from d e s c r i b i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t a s a person who had been

suspellded. T h u s t he r e sponden t s knew, a t t h e t i m e o f v o t i n g f o r

t h e " d i r e c t i v e " on 22 May 1 9 8 1 , t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e

suspens ion was a ma t t e r t o be decided by t h i s c o u r t - a mat-ter

*'

a s t o wh ich Northrop J . had a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a s t

had e s t a b l i s h e d a p r ima f ac i e ca se . No twi ths t and ing t hose

!

f a c t s r t h e decided - a t a time when unde r l a t e r m e e t i n g o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u n c i l , on 2 2 May 1 9 8 1 ,

ru l e 1 2 R ( i i i ) i t was s t i l l open

t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n ' a p p l i c a n t t o a p p e a l - t o i s s u e t h e " d i r e c t i v e " t o a l l t h e

S members t h a t t h e y sholuld no t

w i t h Mr S q u i r e s and t o i n c u r t h e c o s t i n v o l v e d in p o s t i n g t h e

l e t t e r c o n t a i n i n g t h e d i r e c t i v e t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1800 members.

j

Of c o u r s e , it is t r u e , a s Mr Kenz ie submi t t ed , t ha t he

g r a n t o f a r u l e t o show c a u s e d o e s n o t i n l a w r e q u i r e

r e sponden t s t o wi thhp ld ac t ion , nor does it e n t i t l e an a p p l i c a n t

t o i n t e r i m o r d e r s . B u t f u r t h e r a c t i o n by r e sponden t s , g iv ing

e f f e c t o a d e c i s i o n t h e s u b l e c t of a r u l e t o show cause , i s

p l a i n l y r e l e v a n t o a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r i m o r d e r s . In t h e

5 c i rcumstances o f t h i s c a s e , I a c c e p t M r Shawls ubmission that

of s e l f - i n f l i c t e d overcoming t h e e f f e c t o f t h a t " d i r e c t i v e " i s a

the cost

wound and is no t a reason why the r e sponden t s '

,

1 7 .

inconvenience should be regarded by t h e c o u r t a s b e i n g g r e a t e r

i

t h a n t h a t o f t h e a p p l i c a n t . In my opin ion i t is p l a i n l y n o t a

s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r t h e c o u r t t o e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n

!

a g a i n s t t h e a p p l i c a n t .

l

I a l s o r e j e c t Mr Kenzie ' s a rgument tha t the cour t l acked

j u r i s d i c t i o n g r a n t t o t h e i n t e r i m o r d e r s s o u g h t . The

a p p l i c a t i o n fo r i n t e r i m o r d e r s was Pade under s.141(2) of t h e

Act , which reads as fol lows:

,,

" A t any t ime a f t e r p roceed ings unde r t h i s s e c t i o n

have been i n s t i t u t e d ( i n c l u d i n g p r o c e e d i n g s

i n s t i t u t e d b e f o r e t h e commencement o f t h i s

s u b - s e c t i o n ) , t h e Court may make s u c h i n t e r i m

o r d e r s a s it t h i n k s f i t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e m a t t e r s

t o which the proceedings re la te . "

! .

l Mr K e n z i e a r g u e d t h a t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n s t i t u t e d by t h e

ru l e t o show cause g ran ted by Northrop J . do nc'. r e l a t e t o t h e

" d i r e c t i v e " o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u n c i l on 2 2 May 1381 because chat

d i r e c t i v e was n o t i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e t i m e t h e p r o c e e d i n g s were

i n s t i t u t e d . In my op in ion t he power confe r r ed by s .141(2)

should not be so na r rowly cons t rued t ha t i t is n o t a v a i l a b l e t o

enab le t h e c o u r t in' a p r o p e r c a s e t o r e s t r a i n a r e s p o n d e n t o

proceedings d l ready instituted under s.141( 1) from tak ing S teps

t o e n f o r c e or g i v e f f e c t t o a d e c i s i o n made e a r l i e r , t h e

v a l i d i t y o f which i s i n i s s u e i n t he p roceed ings . s ec t ion

1 4 1 ( 2 ) c o n f e r s a power t o " s a f e g u a r d t h e p o s i t i o n and i n t e r e s t s

i o f pa r t i e s pend ing a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h a t it b e a r s

a r e l a t i o n s h i p ' t o t h e m a t t e r s t o w h i c h t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

'l

l_l --

18

re late" ' . Those words are taken f rom R. v. Joske ( 1 9 7 6 ) 135

--

C.L.R. 19.1 a t p.213 where Mason and Murphy JJ. s a i d :

"The power t o make i n t e r i m o r d e r s , g i v e n by sub-s.

( 2 ) , i s l i k e w i s e n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e g i v i n g o f

i

d i r e c t i o n s t o p e r f o r m or o b s e r v e r u l e s . The terms

of t h e g r a n t o t h e C o u r t o f a u t h o r i t y ' t o make

such o rde r s a s it t h i n k s f i t in r e l a t i o n t o t h e

m a t t e r s t o which the p roceed lngs r e l a t e ' i n d i c a t e

t h a t t h e Court has a wide d i s c r e t i o n a s t o the form

o f o r d e r t o b e m a d e . The e x e r c i s e o f t h i s

d i s c r e t i o n c a n n o t b e r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e v a k i n q o f

o rde r s fo r t he pe r fo rmance or observance of the

r u l e s , or f o r t h a t m a t t e r t o d i r e c t i o n s a s t o

m a t t e r s w h i c h w i l l , , c o n d u c e t o p e r f o r m a n c e o r

observance of t h e r u l e s . The h i s to ry o f sub - s . ( 2 )

s u g g e s t s t h a t in i ts present form it is des igned t o

enab le t h e Cour t t o make a n y i n t e r l o c d t o r y o r d e r

which will safeguard t h e p o s i t i o n and i n t e r e s t s of

p a r t i e s pendirig d f l n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , p r o v i d e d

t h a t it b e a r s a r e l a t i o n s h i p ' t o t h e m a t t e r s t o

wh ich t t h i s Court in p roceed ings e r e l a t e ' . The judgments of

Reg. v . Forbes; Ex p a r t e Bevan ( 1 9 7 2 )

127 C . L . R . 1 d r e w a t t e n t i o n t o h e l ? y i t a t i o n

a t t a c h i n g t o t h e power t o make in t e r im o rde r s g iven

sub - s . by ( 2 ) in i t s t h e n r e s t r i c t e d f o r m .

S u b s e q u e n t l y t h e s u b - s e c t i o n w a s amended t o

overcome t h i s l i m i t a t i o n by Act No. 37 of 1 9 7 2

which enac ted the sub-sec t ion i n i t s p r e s e n t 2orm.

The o n l y r e l e v a n t l i m i t a t i o n on t h e C o u r t ' s power

to pronounce concluding an inter im order i s t o be found i n t h e

words o f the sub-sec t ion . Yet hey a re

n o t s b s c e p t i b l e o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h t h e

p r o s e c u t o r s s e e k p l a c e t o u p o n t h e m . I t i s

i m p o s s i b l e t o r e a d ' t h e m a t t e r s t o w h i c h t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s r e l a t e ' a s s i g n i f y i n g no more t h a n t h e

r e l i e f c l a i m e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t in the p roceedings ,

o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , t h a n t h e i s s u e s w h i c h a r e

r a i s e d f o r d e c i s i o n in the proceedings . The words,

we t h i n k , s i g n i f y t h e c o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n t h e

p a r t i e s t o which t he p roceed ings r e l a t e , whe the r or

n o t i t proceedings or i n t h e form b e c r y s t a l l i z e d a s a n i s s u e in t h e s e

of the re l ie f sought . "

I n t ha t ca se , a t pp .200-201 , Ba rwick C . J . s a i d :

1 9 .

"The power given by t h a t s e c t i o n is no t conf ined to

t h e making of rders for the performance of o r

obse rvance s f ru l e s o f an o rgan iza t ion : o r t o

o r d e r s g e r m a n e t o t h e r e l i e f c l a i m e d i n t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s . T h e m a t t e r a c t u a l l y in d i s p u t e

be tween the par t ies ou t o f which the p roceedings

have a r i s en sub-sect ion." and t o wh ich t hey r e l a t e w i l l s a t i s f y

t h e l i m i t a t i o n c o n t a i n e d in t h e f i n a l words of t h e

!

And, a t p.204, Stephen J . s a i d :

!

i > .

" B u t t h i s i s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n q u i t e u n r e l a t e d t o t h e

meaning of the 1imi;ting words sub-s. of ( 2 ) -

' m a t t e r s t o which t h e P r o c e e d i n g s r e l a t e ' . S u c h

' m a t t e r s ' m u s t , I t h i n k , be found e i t h e r i n t h e

'complaint by any member of an o rgan iza t ion ' by

i

w h i c h p r o c e e d i n g s a r e i n i t i a t e d o r e l s e , p e r h a p s ,

in tne subs t ance o f t he d i spu te wh ich unde r l i e s

t ha t compla in t and which t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t s e e k s t o

r e s o l v e . "

Mr Kenzie d id no t pu t submiss ions as to the form of t h ?

in te r im order sought o ther than paragraph 3 of t h e n o t i c s o f

motion (which became order 2 o f t h e i n t e r i m o r d e r s ) . However,

i n a l l " d i r e c t i v e " , t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e i s s u e o f t h e

d u r i n g t h e t i m e w i t h i n which t h e a p p l i c a n t had a

r i g h t o a p p e a l and a f t e r t h e respondents had been served w i t h

t h e r u l e t o show cause g ran ted by Northrop J . , I d e c i d e d n o t t o

extend t h e t ime there sought by the appl icant , namely , 5 pm on

Wednesday, 10 June 1981. A s I s a i d in my s h o r t o r a l r e a s o n s f o r

making t h e o r d e r s :

i

" I t may we l l be t ha t he r e sponden t s w i l l h ave t o

take emergency act ion over the weekend, but i f they

do it is j u s t i f i a b l e in the c i r cums tances . "

20.

L

O n 5 June 1981 I r e se rved my dec i s ion on an app l i ca t ion

i

i by r e sponden t s

t he Sydney. Mr Kenz ie fo r a change venue from Melbourne of t o

:	r e l i ed	on	the	uncont rad ic ted	ev idence	of	Mi
!
l

S m i t h t h a t (1) t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s r e g i s t e r e d o f f i c e

i

<

i s in Sydney, ( 2 ) it has no o f f i c e e l s e w h e r e in A u s t r a l i a , ( 3 )

8 ?

the respondent Smith who is t h e o n l y f u l l t i m e o f f i c e r ( o t h e r

than a r e s e a r c h o f f i c e r who i s n o t e l e c t e d ) r e s i d e s i n Sydney,

( 4 ) t h e a p p l i c a n t and a l l t h e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n d e n t s ( w h o ,

a s I, h a v e s a i d e a r l i e r , c o n s t i t u t e a l l t h e e l e c t e d o f f i c e r s of

t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n ) r e s i d e in Sydney, ( 5 ) t h e v e n t s

t h e s u b j e c t o f these proceedings (o ther than the implemeata t ion

in Bahrain by t h e members of t h e r e sponden t o rgan iza t ion of t h e

" d i r e c t i v e " ) o c c u r r e d i n Sydney, and ( 6 ) a ' l l of t h e members c f

t he r e sponden t London, o rgan iza t ion excep t app rox i~na te ly 1 2 0 based i!l

have Sydney a s t h e i r home base and are enployed by

Q a n t a s , t h e head o f f i c e o f w h i c h i s in Sydney. Mr Smi th a l so

i s a i d t h a t of the membership of the respondent organizat ion " 9 9 . 9

p e r c e n t a l l l i v e in Sydney or i t s close environment". Although

it is d i f f i c u l t t o r e c o n c i l e t h e l a t t e r s t a t e m e n t w i t h ( 6 )

above , p l a in ly on any view, t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e members o f

t he r e sponden t o rgan iza t ion l i ve in Sydney .

Although I was n o t r e f e r r e d t o a n y a u t h o r i t i e s on t h i s

a s p e c t , t h e p r i n c i p l e s a r e c l e a r l y s e c o u t in Wil l iams upre re me

--

C o u r t P r a c t i c e " Volume I pp.1537-8. The p l a i n t i f f h a s t h e r i g h t

l

f

t o f i x t h e v e n u e w h e r e he l i k e s u n l e s s h e a c t s c a p r i c i o u s l y and

1 so c r e a t e s g r e a t and mani fes t inconvenience defendt in t th to

l (Mahrlke v. Schmidt (1889) 1 5 V.L.R. 364; Cording T embath v.

[ l 9 2 1 1 V.L.R. 1 6 3 ; Ryan v. Harrison [ l9571 V . R . 2 1 0 ) . As t o t h e

I

l

d e s i r a b i l i l t y of

t he

hea r ing

be

ing

a

t

t he

p l ace

where

t h e

cause

I

o f a c t i o n S c o t t a r o s e , and where t h e w i t n e s s e s r e s i d e , s e e O ' B r i e n v.

( 1 9 0 0 ) 6 A.L .R . (C.N.) 4 5 and Egan v . Bar r ie r Branch - of

t h e Amalgamated Miners ' Associat ion of Broken H i l l - ( 1 9 1 7 ) 34

W.N. (N.S.W.) 13. I n g e n e r a l , a change w i l l not be ordered on

the	g round	mere ly	t ha t	t he	cause	o f	ac t ion	a rose	e l sewhere
I

(Parnel l v . McLaughlin L t d [ l 9 1 9 1 S t . R. Qld 1 4 5 ) . A n o rder f o r

change of the venue may be made i f t h e d e f e n d a n t and d number of

h i s w i tnes ses r e s ide nea r t h e p l a c e where i t is s a i d t h e a c t i o n

should be p a r t i c u l a r l y h ard (Wilson v. Syme (188C) G V . L . R . ( L ) 2 0 0 ) ,

I f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a r o s e a t t h a t p l a c e

( A u s t r d l i a n J o i n t S t o c k Bank L t d v . H o c k e ~ ( 1 9 0 3 ) 2 0 W . N .

------_X- --

(N.S.W.) 32; Perrnewan Wrightr C Co. L t d v . --- -. Pearce (1903) - 2 0 W.N.

l

(N.S.W.) 2 0 2 ) .

A p p l y i n g t h o s e p r i n c i p l e s t o the f a c t s r e l i e d upon by Mr

Kenzie and summarized above, there i s a s t rong ca se fo r dec id ing

t h a t h e g i v e way becduse of a p p l i c a n t ' $ r i g h t o i n i t i a l l y c h o o s e t h e v e n u e m u s t

the balance of convenience and acco rd ing ly

d i r e c t i n g a change of venue to Sydney insofar as the case is

l i k e l y t o i n v o l v e c a l l i n g a number o f wi tnesses who r e s i d e in

i

Sydney. A s Mr K e n z i e p o i n t e d o u t , t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t i n

s u p p o r t o f t h e r u l e t o show c a u s e e x p r e s s l y a l l e g e s t h a t s e v e n

o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s " a r e i n v i n c i b l y b i a s s e d a g a i n s t me". If may

22.

w e l l be necessa ry fo r each of them t o g ive ev idence and they a l l

r e s i d e i n t h a t t h i s a s p e c t is answered Sydney - a s d o e s t h e a p p l i c a n t . I do no t cons ide r

by Mr Shawls submiss ion cha t there

would be l i t t l e i n c o n v e n i e n c e t o them b e c a u s e t h e y a r e a l l

members of a ve ry mob i l e p ro fes s ion and t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d

!

t o c h e a p a i r f a r e s by v i r t u e o f t h e i r employment by Q a n t a s .

Apar t f ron r e ly ing on t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s r i g h t t o f i x t h e

venue u n l e s s he t he reby c r ea t e s g rea t i nconven ience , t he on ly

point of substance advanced i y Mr Shaw on t h i s q u e s t i o n was t h a t

the appl icant b r i e f e d has engaged a s o l i c i t o r i n M e l b o u r n e , who h a s

two members of t h e V i c t o r i a n Bar to conduc t t he case and

t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of work alreildy done on t h e c a s e

- would be t o sane e x t e n t l o s t i f t h e a p p l i c a n t were nox fo rced t o

I) b r i e f Sydney counsel. I t was s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t n i g h t

b e f o r c e d t o do so - d e s p i t e h i s wish to r e t a in Me lbourne

c o u n s e l - b e c a u s e when f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f r o m t h e

Commonwealth under s.141A i s g ran ted it is normally on c o n d i t i o n

t h a t h e s o l i c i t o r b r i e f s c o u n s e r from t h e S t a t e in which t h e

m a t t e r is t o be heard. Mr Macken, t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s o l i c i t o r ,

gave ev idence o t h e r w i s e tha t t h i s was so "unless the Attorney-Gen6=ral

d i r e c t s " . I t cannot be s a i d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s

a c t e d " c a p r i c i o u s l y " in h a v i n g t h e m a t t e r r e t u r n a b l e i!l

Melbourne. I t may wel l tha t be the At torney-Genera l will

o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t i n a ca se such a s t h i s in which t h e proceedlngs

w e r e i n s t i t u t e d in Melbourne by a Melbourne s o l i c i t o r , t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a r u l e t o show cause was heard i n Melbourne and

i

t

2 3 .

made r e t u r n a b l e by Northrop J.. in Melbourne and t h e r e has

al ready been a hear ing in Melbourne o f the appl ica t ion for

i n t e r i m o r d e r s and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a change of venue. I t

may be tha t fu r the r i n fo rma t ion can be ob ta ined on t h a t a s p e c t

and a l s o a s t o t h e number o f p e r s o n s r e s i d i n g in Sydney who a r e

t o be wi tnesses in t h e c a s e . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e w i l l be

a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of t ime spent on legal drgument . 011 e

e s t i m a t e of t h e ove ra l l hea r ing t ime was 8-10 days. A s t o t h a t

a s p e c t o f t h e c a s e t h e c l a i m f o r a Sydney h e a r i n g h a s f a r l e s s

weight and it may be t h a t &e f a i r e s t c o u r s e i s t o h a v e p a r t of

t he hea r ing in Sydney and p a r t in Melbourne - p a r t i c u l a r l y i f

t h e a p p l i c a n t cho ice who would o therwise lose the Melbourne counse l of h i s

have a l ready worked on t h e case, presumably conferred

w i t h h i m and appedred for h im. The ev idence before me does no t

e s t a b l i s h w h a t t h e p r a c t i c e a s t o f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e from t h e

Commonwealth i s where a c a s e i s t o be heard par t ly in o n e S t a t e

and p a r t l y in ano the r .

S e c t i o n 4 8 of the Federa l Cour t o f Aus t ra l ia Act 19'6

r e a d s	a s	f o l l o w s :
"The Court or a Judge may, a t any s t age o f a
proceeding in t h e C o u r t , d i r e c t t h a t the p roceeding
o r a p a r t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g b e c o n d u c t e d o r
c o n t i n u e d a t a p l a c e s p e c i f i e d in t h e o r d e r ,
s u b j e c t t o s u c h c o n d i t i o n s ( i f a n y ) a s t h e Court or
Judge imposes. "

I n a l l t he c i r cums tances I h a v e d e c i d e d t o d i r e c t t h a t p a r t o f

t h e proceeding, namely the hedring u n t i l t h e c l o s e of t h e c a s e

2 4 .

for the respondents , sha l l be conducted in Sydney. The q u e s t i o n

of whether the remainder of the hear ing should be in Melbourne

or i n Sydney is a matter which can be determined a t a l a t e r

d a t e . T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n may be done e i the r on a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g o f t h i s

( a s t o which I s h a l l r e s e r v e l i b e r t y t o a n y p a r t y t o

app ly ) or a t h e h e a r i n g by t h e t r i a l I u d g e . The p a r t i e s a re

d i r e c t e d t o a r r a n g e w i t h t h e R e g i s t r a r a d a t e 'for hea r ing .

I 7

I

i

j

. . -