Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Able Demolitions & Excavations Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1247

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Able Demolitions & Excavations Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1247

The applicant failed to demonstrate a strong case for contravention of s 285E(2) and s 285E(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). No irreparable harm would occur if interlocutory relief was not granted, as relevant records would remain accessible. Balance of convenience favoured not granting the injunctive relief, preserving the current situation until final hearing, particularly given past site disruptions and urgency not being established.

Parties
Applicant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Respondent: Able Demolitions and Excavations Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Dismissal of Interlocutory Relief Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Entry, Industrial Dispute, Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth), Certified Agreements, Awards, Union Membership
Industrial Law Right of Entry Industrial Dispute Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Certified Agreements Awards Union Membership

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Applicant

Able Demolitions and Excavations Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Dismissal of Interlocutory Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether circumstances necessary for use of permit under s 285A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) exist
  2. 2 Whether there are breaches of the relevant Award or agreement
  3. 3 Whether Union members are present on the work site

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a strong case for contravention of s 285E(2) and s 285E(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). No irreparable harm would occur if interlocutory relief was not granted, as relevant records would remain accessible. Balance of convenience favoured not granting the injunctive relief, preserving the current situation until final hearing, particularly given past site disruptions and urgency not being established.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application by the applicant for interlocutory relief as set out in the application filed 24 August 2000 is dismissed.