Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill [2010] FCAFC 39

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill [2010] FCAFC 39

The primary judge correctly considered whether the three contraventions were a single course of conduct and determined they were distinct in time, place, and manner. The penalties imposed were within the permissible range and were not manifestly excessive. No appealable error was established.

Parties
Appellant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Appellant: Robert (Bob) Mates; Respondent: Chris Cahill
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Sentencing Appeal / Final Judgment and Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing Appeal, Pecuniary Penalties, Course of Conduct, Manifestly Excessive Penalties

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 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Appellant

Robert (Bob) Mates

Appellant

Chris Cahill

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sentencing Appeal / Final Judgment and Order

  1. 1 Whether the contravening conduct constituted a single course of conduct under s 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the penalties imposed were manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge correctly considered whether the three contraventions were a single course of conduct and determined they were distinct in time, place, and manner. The penalties imposed were within the permissible range and were not manifestly excessive. No appealable error was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.