CFMEU v Mirvac Constructions Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 341

CFMEU v Mirvac Constructions Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 341

The Court declined to grant interlocutory anti-suit injunctions because undertakings by the respondents afforded the applicant sufficient protection pending determination, allowing opportunity for CFMEU to respond if proceedings in another court became vexatious or oppressive, and balance of convenience did not favour immediate interlocutory relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief (injunction) / Interlocutory / Directions Hearing
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused; directions hearing adjourned.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'anti Suit Injunction' 'protected Industrial Action' 'balance of Convenience' 'workplace Relations Act' 'coercion in Industrial Agreements']
['industrial Law'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'anti Suit Injunction' 'protected Industrial Action' 'balance of Convenience' 'workplace Relations Act' 'coercion in 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief (injunction) / Interlocutory / Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an action for a quia timet injunction is an action in tort within s 166A of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)' 'Whether industrial action in pending or threatened proceedings is protected action within s 170MT' 'Whether proceedings in the Supreme Court constitute contravention of s 170NC by coercion' 'Whether respondents engaged in action/threatened action in contravention of s 170NC']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to grant interlocutory anti-suit injunctions because undertakings by the respondents afforded the applicant sufficient protection pending determination, allowing opportunity for CFMEU to respond if proceedings in another court became vexatious or oppressive, and balance of convenience did not favour immediate interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused; directions hearing adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Directions hearing adjourned to 26 April 2000 at 10.15 am.' 'Liberty reserved to any party to apply on not less than 48 hours notice in writing to the other parties.' 'Respondents (and each) undertake not to commence or prosecute proceedings in Supreme Court matter 4373 of 2000 or other proceedings relating to...