SZSPT v MIBP

Case [2014] FCA 1254


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Quirk and Miller; In the matter of an urgent application before the start of a proceeding [2014] FCA 1254

Citation: Quirk and Miller; In the matter of an urgent application before the start of a proceeding [2014] FCA 1254
Parties: ANDREW QUIRK and BRIAN MILLER  
File number(s): NSD 1190 of 2014
Judge(s): BUCHANAN J
Date of judgment: 18 November 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding – Injunction sought to stop disciplinary meeting of a union taking place – Allegation that disciplinary meeting would breach union rules – Order under s 164 of Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) sought – applications dismissed
Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), ss 164, 164(2), 164(3)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 34.06, 34.06(2)(b)

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Construction and General Division Rules, r 11  

Date of hearing: 18 November 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 22
Counsel for the Prospective Applicants: Mr I M Neil SC with Ms B Obradovic

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 1190 of 2014

IN THE MATTER OF AN URGENT APPLICATION
BEFORE THE START OF A PROCEEDING

BETWEEN:

ANDREW QUIRK
First Prospective Applicant

BRIAN MILLER
Second Prospective Applicant

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 NOVEMBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants have leave to file electronically their Urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding. 

2.The application be dismissed. 

3.The oral application for an order under s 164 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 1190 of 2014

IN THE MATTER OF AN URGENT APPLICATION
BEFORE THE START OF A PROCEEDING

BETWEEN:

ANDREW QUIRK
First Prospective Applicant

BRIAN MILLER
Second Prospective Applicant

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

18 NOVEMBER 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

  1. I am dealing with an urgent application before the start of a proceeding, brought on behalf of Mr Andrew Quirk and Mr Brian Miller.  I gave leave for that application to be filed electronically when the proceeding commenced. 

  2. Mr Quirk and Mr Miller are each officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”), Construction and General Division (“the Division”).  Each has been charged under the rules of the CFMEU by Mr David Noonan, the Secretary of the Division, with gross misbehaviour.  Those charges were made by Mr Noonan by letter dated 5 November 2014.  In Mr Quirk’s case they arise from statements made by Mr Quirk on 16 October 2014 on the ABC 7.30 program.  In Mr Miller’s case they arise from statements made on 16 October 2014 on the ABC 7.30 program and to a journalist at the Sydney Morning…

Continue reading SZSPT v MIBP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1254
Case
[2014] FCA 1254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, SZSPT, sought an urgent application before the commencement of proceedings against the respondents, MIBP, to prevent a disciplinary meeting of a union from taking place. The applicants alleged that the meeting would breach union rules and sought an order under section 164 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants had demonstrated a sufficient urgency to warrant an interim order and whether the meeting would indeed breach union rules. The court needed to consider the balance of convenience and the irreparable harm that might result if the meeting proceeded without the intervention of the court.

The court held that the applicants had not established the necessary urgency to warrant an interim order and that the potential harm, if any, was not sufficient to justify the court's intervention. The applicants' allegations of a breach of union rules were not substantiated, and the court was not satisfied that the meeting would result in a breach of the union's rules. Consequently, the court dismissed both the urgent application and the oral application for an order under section 164 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth).

The court made two orders: granting the applicants leave to file their urgent application electronically and dismissing the application. Additionally, the court dismissed the oral application for an order under section 164 of the Act. The applicants were to bear their own costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants have leave to file electronically their Urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding.

2. The application be dismissed.

3. The oral application for an order under s 164 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.