Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v. Australian Building Construction Employees & Ors [1988] FCA 293

Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v. Australian Building Construction Employees & Ors [1988] FCA 293

The applicant failed to prove, to the requisite standard, that the respondents’ conduct was engaged in for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the applicant, as required by s.45D(1) of the Trade Practices Act. Mere presence on the sites did not suffice to establish the necessary proscribed purpose for contempt. Therefore, the charge of contempt was not established against any respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty. Limited; First Respondent: Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers' Federation; Second Respondent: Steve Black; Third Respondent: William Ross Heffernan; Fourth Respondent: Douglas Siddons
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the third respondent.
Legal Topics
Disobedience of Court Orders, Purpose of Conduct Under Trade Practices Act S.45 D, Standard of Proof in Contempt, Section 45 D Trade Practices Act
Contempt of Court Trade Practices Industrial Law Disobedience of Court Orders Purpose of Conduct Under Trade Practices Act S.45 D Standard of Proof in Contempt Section 45 D Trade Practices Act

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty. Limited

Applicant

Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers' Federation

First Respondent

Steve Black

Second Respondent

William Ross Heffernan

Third Respondent

Douglas Siddons

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents disobeyed interlocutory orders made under s.45D(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct was engaged in for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the applicant’s business
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established contempt to the requisite criminal standard

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove, to the requisite standard, that the respondents’ conduct was engaged in for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the applicant, as required by s.45D(1) of the Trade Practices Act. Mere presence on the sites did not suffice to establish the necessary proscribed purpose for contempt. Therefore, the charge of contempt was not established against any respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the third respondent.

Orders

  • The application that the second, third and fourth respondents be adjudged to be guilty of contempt of Court is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the third respondent's costs.