Case: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 ; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Outcome: followed
Gleeson CJ and Crennan J observed in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 ; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [19] , in all applications for an interlocutory injunction the Court will ask whether the plaintiff has shown that: As their Honours observed further, these are the organising principles, to be applied having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, under which issues of justice and convenience are addressed (at [19]). It follows that it is for Ms Jones to satisfy me positively in respect of these issues. Before turning to these issues however it is appropriate to identify the precise relief sought by Ms Jones, and, in more detail, the background to this application. Relief Sought Pursuant to her application Ms Jones seeks relief for adverse action taken against her, and/or proposed to be taken against her, by QTAC because of her role in negotiations for an Enterprise Agreement, and for breach of her contract of employment. The permanent relief sought by Ms Jones is as follows: A. DETAILS OF CLAIM On the grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit or statement of claim (or such other accompanying document as may be prescribed by the Rules) the Applicant claims: Pursuant to section 545(2)(a) of the FW Act, an injunction restraining the Respondent from taking any action against the Applicant in reliance upon: any allegations against the Applicant made by the Australian Services Union in its letter to the Respondent dated 7 August 2009; and/or the complaint made against the Applicant by Nicola Bowes dated 7 August 2009; and/or the anonymous complaint made against the Applicant dated 11 August 2009; and/or the anonymous complaint made against the Applicant dated 12 August 2009; and/or the complaint made against the Applicant by Danelle Bayley dated 13 August 2009; and/or any allegations against the Applicant made by the Australian Services Union in its letter to the Respondent dated 14 August 2009; and/or the Carol Watson report on Grievances against CEO, QTAC dated 28 September 2009; and/or Walter Williams' hand written diary notes forwarded to the Applicant by Professor Deborah Terry on about 30 October 2009. Pursuant to section 545(2)(b) of the FW Act, the Respondent pay the Applicant compensation for loss suffered by the Applicant because of the Respondent's contravention of the FW Act; Pursuant to section 546 of the FW Act, the Respondent pay the Applicant a pecuniary penalty for the Respondent's contravention of the FW Act; A declaration that it is a term of the employment contract between the Applicant and the Respondent dated 29 November 2007 that the Applicant is entitled to be accorded natural justice in any investigation into any complaint or allegation of serious misconduct as set out in clause 15.2 of the employment contract and/or unsatisfactory performance or misconduct as set out in clause 15.3 of the employment contract. A declaration that the Respondent is in breach of the contract of employment between the Applicant and the Respondent by failing to: (a) accord the Applicant natural justice in the purported investigation into the allegations and complaints against her, as referred to in paragraph 1 above. 6. Damages for breach of contract. It is clear that the question whether there is a serious question to be tried imports the obligation of the applicant to establish a prima facie case for permanent relief as explained by Gummow and Hayne JJ in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 ; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65] . There, their Honours said the establishment of a prima facie case in this context meant it was sufficient for the plaintiff to show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial. How strong the likelihood needs to be depends upon the nature of the rights the plaintiff asserts, and the practical consequences likely to flow from the order sought ( Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 ; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65] , Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1 ; (1968) 118 CLR 618 at 622).