Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v The Maritime Union of Australia [2001] FCA 1807

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v The Maritime Union of Australia [2001] FCA 1807

Injunctive relief was warranted against the first and second respondents because the conduct involving undue harassment or coercion was serious, a contravention of s 60 would not necessarily be covered by the s 45DB undertakings, the agreed compliance program was not sufficient reason to refuse relief, and despite the time elapsed since the last contravention, the risk of repetition should not be left with the public.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceedings Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Submissions and Orders Following Judgment on 5 November 2001
Outcome
Injunctive relief granted against the first and second respondents; agreed orders otherwise made.
Legal Topics
['undue Harassment or Coercion' 'hold Cleaning Services' 'section 60 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'section 45 DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'compliance Program' 'undertakings' 'criminal Provisions and Injunctive Relief']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'trade Practices' 'injunctions' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['undue Harassment or Coercion' 'hold Cleaning Services' 'section 60 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'section 45 DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'compliance Program' 'undertakings' 'criminal Provisions and Injunctive Relief']

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Proceedings Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Submissions and Orders Following Judgment on 5 November 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether injunctive relief should be granted against the first and second respondents restraining them from using undue harassment or coercion in connection with the supply or possible supply of hold cleaning services.' 'Whether undertakings concerning s 45DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and an agreed compliance program made an injunction under s 60 unnecessary.' 'Whether the Court should be reluctant to grant an injunction restraining contravention of a criminal provision.' 'Whether the lapse of time since the contraventions and absence of evidence of threatened repetition should weigh against injunctive relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Injunctive relief was warranted against the first and second respondents because the conduct involving undue harassment or coercion was serious, a contravention of s 60 would not necessarily be covered by the s 45DB undertakings, the agreed compliance program was not sufficient reason to refuse relief, and despite the time elapsed since the last contravention, the risk of repetition should not be left with the public.

Court Disposition

Injunctive relief granted against the first and second respondents; agreed orders otherwise made.

Orders

  • ["The orders set out in the draft short minutes of order prepared by the respondents and to which changes have been made in accordance with matters that have been agreed between the parties be made, with schedules 1 and 2 as attached to the short minutes of order in draft prepared by the Commission being substituted...