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 ApplicantBRIAN 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 ApplicantBRIAN MILLER
Second Prospective Applicant
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE:
18 NOVEMBER 2014
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
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.
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
- AGLC
- SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1254
- Case
- [2014] FCA 1254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.