Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Williams [2009] FCAFC 171
The conduct of Mr Mates in procuring and threatening a stoppage was a single course of conduct and should be treated as one act for penalty purposes; the primary judge's failure to treat it as such was an error that led to setting aside the penalties and substituting new, lower fines.
- Parties
- First Appellant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Second Appellant: Robert Mates; Respondent: Andrew Williams
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 December 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Sentencing Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Penalty Orders
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; penalties re-imposed
- Legal Topics
- Pecuniary Penalties, Sentencing Discretion, Course of Conduct, Totality Principle
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
First Appellant
Robert Mates
Second Appellant
Andrew Williams
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Sentencing Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Penalty Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether conduct was a single course of conduct for sentencing purposes
- 2 Whether penalties imposed were excessive or in error
Ratio Decidendi
The conduct of Mr Mates in procuring and threatening a stoppage was a single course of conduct and should be treated as one act for penalty purposes; the primary judge's failure to treat it as such was an error that led to setting aside the penalties and substituting new, lower fines.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; penalties re-imposed
Orders
- The appeal be allowed.
- Orders 1 to 5 of the order of Jessup J of 28 May 2009 be set aside.
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