Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2000] FCA 708

Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2000] FCA 708

The contempt was a wilful and serious breach of paragraph 2 of Whitlam J's orders. Johnston and Mighell were major protagonists, publicly defied the orders, did not apologise or seek to purge the contempt, and showed no remorse or regret, so fines of $20,000 each were appropriate despite consideration of their financial means. Melhem should not receive a financial penalty other than costs because he unreservedly apologised, was not a major protagonist, and did not publicly defy the Court. Costs were ordered so that the individual respondents recover taxed costs on the unsuccessful paragraph 1 contempt motion and the applicant recover taxed costs on the successful paragraph 2 contempt motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Motion for Contempt for Breach of Court Orders / Penalty and Costs After Declaration of Contempt
Outcome
Johnston and Mighell fined $20,000 each for contempt; no financial penalty imposed on Melhem other than costs; costs orders made on a party and party basis with liberty to apply reserved.
Legal Topics
['breach of Court Orders' 'penalty for Contempt' 'apology and Remorse in Mitigation' 'costs' 'enforcement of Fines']
['contempt of Court' 'industrial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Court Orders' 'penalty for Contempt' 'apology and Remorse in Mitigation' 'costs' 'enforcement of Fines']

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

Motion for Contempt for Breach of Court Orders / Penalty and Costs After Declaration of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether financial penalties should be imposed on the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents for contempt constituted by breach of paragraph 2 of Whitlam J's orders made on 22 November 1999." "Whether Melhem's apology, lesser role and absence of public defiance justified no financial penalty." 'What penalty was appropriate for Johnston and Mighell having regard to the seriousness of the contempt, their public defiance, lack of apology, financial means and enforcement procedures.' "What costs orders should be made following the applicant's success on contempt in respect of paragraph 2 and failure in respect of paragraph 1."]

Ratio Decidendi

The contempt was a wilful and serious breach of paragraph 2 of Whitlam J's orders. Johnston and Mighell were major protagonists, publicly defied the orders, did not apologise or seek to purge the contempt, and showed no remorse or regret, so fines of $20,000 each were appropriate despite consideration of their financial means. Melhem should not receive a financial penalty other than costs because he unreservedly apologised, was not a major protagonist, and did not publicly defy the Court. Costs were ordered so that the individual respondents recover taxed costs on the unsuccessful paragraph 1 contempt motion and the applicant recover taxed costs on the successful paragraph 2 contempt motion.

Court Disposition

Johnston and Mighell fined $20,000 each for contempt; no financial penalty imposed on Melhem other than costs; costs orders made on a party and party basis with liberty to apply reserved.

Orders

  • ['A fine of $20,000 be imposed on the fourth respondent, Craig Johnston.' 'A fine of $20,000 be imposed on the fifth respondent, Dean Mighell.' 'The said fines be paid to the District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, 305 William Street, Melbourne, within 30 days.' "The fourth, fifth and sixth respondents...