Vickers v Hanks

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vickers v Hanks [1999] FCA 695

VICKERS V HANKS
W 84 of 1999

CARR J
25 AUGUST 1999
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 84 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	ALAN STEWART VICKERS Applicant
AND:	PETER LAWRENCE HANKS Respondent
JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 AUGUST 1999
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s claim for interlocutory relief, as set out in paragraph 2 of his application, be dismissed.

2.The costs of that interlocutory application be costs in the cause.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 84 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	ALAN STEWART VICKERS Applicant
AND:	PETER LAWRENCE HANKS Respondent

JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE:	25 AUGUST 1999
PLACE:	PERTH

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The Court has before it an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, until the final hearing and determination of the principal application, from proceeding with an inquiry or making a proposed decision. 

2. I shall outline the factual background to this matter.  It should be clearly understood that by referring to the factual background, I am not to be taken to be making any final findings of fact.  As I have mentioned, this is an application for interlocutory relief and my decision has to be based on the affidavit material which has been filed to date.  None of that affidavit material has been tested by cross-examination or otherwise.

3. The applicant is a civilian General Service Officer level 5 employed by the Department of Defence at Palmer Barracks near Perth. Since early 1996 the applicant has been the workplace delegate at Palmer Barracks for members of the National Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch (“the Union”). The applicant’s evidence is that in the course of his duties as workplace delegate he had dealings with, in particular, two persons at Palmer Barracks. The first was a Ms Frederika Cousins and the second was a Lieutenant Robinson. On 22 March 1998 Ms Cousins lodged a formal complaint (termed “a grievance”) alleging workplace harassment by the applicant. The Department of Defence instigated an investigation into that complaint. At that stage the applicant, through his solicitors, foreshadowed an application to this Court to prevent that investigation proceeding, on the basis that while undertaking the role of a union representative his actions could not constitute actions to which the relevant regulation applied. In circumstances which it is not necessary, at this stage, for me to relate, the Department (with Ms Cousins’ consent) suspended consideration of her complaint and appointed an Authorised Officer, a Mr P Hansar to determine whether disciplinary charges should be laid against the applicant. Mr Hansar engaged a firm in Canberra, Quality Management Solutions (whose principal is Mr P Grills) to investigate the allegations made by Ms Cousins of misconduct on the part of Mr Vickers, the applicant. Mr Grills’ firm was retained for…