Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Australia v Inspector Alfred [2004] FCAFC 36
Where injunctive and declaratory relief only, and not a penalty, is sought in respect of a penalty provision, the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty does not relieve individual respondents from the obligation to file a defence; they must object to specific instances of disclosure rather than be excused from defence in limine.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 February 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Single Judge Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['privilege Against Self Exposure to Penalty' 'pleadings' 'injunctions' 'declarations' 'penalty Provisions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Single Judge Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether individual respondents are exempted from filing a defence on the basis of privilege against self-exposure to a penalty' "Whether a proceeding seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief in respect of a penalty provision is to be characterised as a 'proceeding for a penalty'"]
Ratio Decidendi
Where injunctive and declaratory relief only, and not a penalty, is sought in respect of a penalty provision, the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty does not relieve individual respondents from the obligation to file a defence; they must object to specific instances of disclosure rather than be excused from defence in limine.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment