Auspine Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 500

Auspine Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 500

The Court declined to grant the interim order for an injunction as it was not satisfied on the current material, particularly as to the balance of convenience and the impact of the orders sought, that such relief should be granted at this stage.

Parties
Applicant: Auspine Limited; First Respondent: The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Second Respondent: Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; Third Respondent: Australian Manufacturing Workers Union; Fourth Respondents: Paul Martinella and Others
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
interim injunction refused; application adjourned
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Interim Injunction, Balance of Convenience
Employment Law Industrial Relations Industrial Action Interim Injunction Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auspine Limited

Applicant

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

First Respondent

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

Second Respondent

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union

Third Respondent

Paul Martinella and Others

Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents' picketing is protected action under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the notices of intended industrial action sufficiently identified picketing as protected action

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to grant the interim order for an injunction as it was not satisfied on the current material, particularly as to the balance of convenience and the impact of the orders sought, that such relief should be granted at this stage.

Court Disposition

interim injunction refused; application adjourned

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction refused
  • Application adjourned until 9.15 am, 4 April 2000