Blomfield v Bechtel Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1494

Blomfield v Bechtel Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1494

The application for interlocutory reinstatement was dismissed because the evidence did not demonstrate a compelling case for relief, particularly given the lack of immediate or imminent workplace risk as required by s 84 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), and due to the balance of convenience and absence of an overwhelming likelihood of success.

Parties
First Applicant: Bennett Blomfield; Second Applicant: Joseph Munro; Third Applicant: Cameron Townsley; Respondent: Bechtel Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Hearing; Orders Made, Matter Listed for Trial
Outcome
Application for interlocutory reinstatement orders dismissed; matter listed for trial; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctive Relief, Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) Contraventions, Termination of Employment, Workers' Workplace Rights, Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (qld)
Industrial Law Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) Contraventions Termination of Employment Workers' Workplace Rights Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (qld)

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bennett Blomfield

First Applicant

Joseph Munro

Second Applicant

Cameron Townsley

Third Applicant

Bechtel Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Hearing; Orders Made, Matter Listed for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted for reinstatement of applicant workers pending trial
  2. 2 Whether a serious question to be tried exists in respect of alleged contraventions of s 340 and s 346 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether applicants exercised a workplace right under s 84 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interlocutory reinstatement was dismissed because the evidence did not demonstrate a compelling case for relief, particularly given the lack of immediate or imminent workplace risk as required by s 84 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), and due to the balance of convenience and absence of an overwhelming likelihood of success.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory reinstatement orders dismissed; matter listed for trial; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory reinstatement orders is dismissed.
  • The matter is to be listed for trial on a date to be fixed.