Tighe v Watson - [1998] FCA 1100

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW – rule to show cause – whether serious question to be tried – whether applicant must have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter within the union before seeking relief – balance of convenience – whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant relief in the nature of an injunction against a person who holds office under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s23

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s39B

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss170LJ, 209, 412

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) s141

Baird v Kingham and Ors (1993) 51 IR 264, followed

Anderson v Johnson (1990) 22 FCR 326, followed

R v Joske; Ex parte Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (1976) 135 CLR 194, applied

Darroch v Tanner (1987) 16 FCR 368, applied

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 153 ALR 643, applied

PETER TIGHE –v- PAUL WATSON, COLIN COOPER, BRIAN BAULK, V HORREX, I MCLEAN, J PERIGILLY, B RISELEY, J COFFEY, L COOPER, M SWAN, P COLLINS, E VERVAART, D IRONS, E MURIC, J BROWN, K MALLIS, G THOMAS, G STURGESS, A ABSOLOM, L CHALKER, N KINNIBURGH, R ROE, B WATKINS, D DWYER and K DOREN; WAYNE BLAIR; and VISIONSTREAM PTY LIMITED (ACN 062 604 193)

VG 416 of 1998

MARSHALL J

MELBOURNE

7 SEPTEMBER 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 416 of 1998

BETWEEN:

PETER TIGHE
Applicant

AND:

PAUL WATSON, COLIN COOPER, BRIAN BAULK, V HORREX, I MCLEAN, J PERIGILLY, B RISELEY, J COFFEY, L COOPER, M SWAN, P COLLINS, E VERVAART, D IRONS, E MURIC, J BROWN, K MALLIS, G THOMAS, G STURGESS, A ABSOLOM, L CHALKER, N KINNIBURGH, R ROE, B WATKINS, D DWYER and K DOREN

First Respondent

WAYNE BLAIR
Second Respondent

VISIONSTREAM PTY LIMITED (ACN 062 604 193)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 SEPTEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Pending the final determination of the rule to show cause or further order the second respondent refrain from signing any order for the certification of the Visionstream Certified Agreement 1998 dated 17 June 1998.

Liberty to apply on not less than 48 hours written notice to each other party.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 416 of 1998

BETWEEN:

PETER TIGHE
Applicant

AND:

PAUL WATSON, COLIN COOPER, BRIAN BAULK, V HORREX, I MCLEAN, J PERIGILLY, B RISELEY, J COFFEY, L COOPER, M SWAN, P COLLINS, E VERVAART, D IRONS, E MURIC, J BROWN, K MALLIS, G THOMAS, G STURGESS, A ABSOLOM, L CHALKER, N KINNIBURGH, R ROE, B WATKINS, D DWYER and K DOREN

First Respondent

WAYNE BLAIR
Second Respondent

VISIONSTREAM PTY LIMITED (ACN 062 604 193)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

7 SEPTEMBER 1998

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 25 August 1998…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Tighe v Watson

Details

AGLC: Tighe v Watson [1998] FCA 1100
Case: [1998] FCA 1100
Decision Date: 7 SEPTEMBER 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tighe v Watson involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Tighe, and the second respondent, Watson. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary dispute centres around the certification of an industrial agreement, specifically the Visionstream Certified Agreement 1998 dated 17 June 1998. Tighe seeks to prevent Watson, who holds a position of authority, from signing any order for the certification of this agreement.

The court was tasked with determining whether there were grounds to restrain Watson from taking action that could potentially finalise the certification of the mentioned industrial agreement. The legal issues at hand revolved around the implications of such certification, the authority of the second respondent in this context, and the potential impact on the rights of the plaintiff. The court had to assess whether an interim order was warranted to preserve the status quo until the substantive issues could be fully litigated.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the urgency and necessity of preserving the current situation. It concluded that there was a sufficient likelihood that the plaintiff's rights could be adversely affected if the certification process proceeded without further judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the court issued an interim order requiring the second respondent to refrain from signing any order for the certification of the Visionstream Certified Agreement 1998 until further notice. This decision was made to ensure that the substantive issues could be properly addressed without immediate prejudice to the plaintiff's position.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pending the final determination of the rule to show cause or further order the second respondent refrain from signing any order for the certification of the Visionstream Certified Agreement 1998 dated 17 June 1998.

Liberty to apply on not less than 48 hours written notice to each other party.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 416 of 1998

BETWEEN:	PETER TIGHE Applicant
AND:	PAUL WATSON, COLIN COOPER, BRIAN BAULK, V HORREX, I MCLEAN, J PERIGILLY, B RISELEY, J COFFEY, L COOPER, M SWAN, P COLLINS, E VERVAART, D IRONS, E MURIC, J BROWN, K MALLIS, G THOMAS, G STURGESS, A ABSOLOM, L CHALKER, N KINNIBURGH, R ROE, B WATKINS, D DWYER and K DOREN First Respondent WAYNE BLAIR Second Respondent VISIONSTREAM PTY LIMITED (ACN 062 604 193) Third Respondent
JUDGE:		MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:		7 SEPTEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE:		MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	7 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:	MELBOURNE