Australian Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers Union v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 528

Australian Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers Union v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 528

The application fails because no serious question arises that s 298K(1) of the Act was contravened or that the respondents entered a conspiracy intending to injure the applicant. In addition, the evidence does not support actual pecuniary loss or breach of the relevant contract, and the balance of convenience does not favour the grant of interlocutory relief; damages would be an adequate remedy.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union; First Respondent: Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application, Judgment on Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Association, Conspiracy, Interference With Contractual Relations, Industrial Agreements
Industrial Law Torts Contracts Freedom of Association Conspiracy Interference With Contractual Relations Industrial Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union

Applicant

Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application, Judgment on Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents contravened s 298K(1)(b) and (c) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the respondents engaged in conduct prohibited under s 298L(1)(h)
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding conspiracy by unlawful means

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails because no serious question arises that s 298K(1) of the Act was contravened or that the respondents entered a conspiracy intending to injure the applicant. In addition, the evidence does not support actual pecuniary loss or breach of the relevant contract, and the balance of convenience does not favour the grant of interlocutory relief; damages would be an adequate remedy.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.