Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2016] FCA 1305

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2016] FCA 1305

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was not attended by sufficient doubt and the applicants did not demonstrate substantial injustice if leave were refused. It was reasonably open to Collier J to make Australia-wide interlocutory injunctions due to the risk of industrial action at other...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'width of Injunctions' 'protected Industrial Action' 'fair Work Act Civil Remedy Provisions']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'width of Injunctions' 'protected Industrial Action' 'fair Work Act Civil Remedy Provisions']

Source-derived case record

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 Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interlocutory injunctions were too wide because they extended beyond Queensland and the Northern Territory.' 'Whether protected industrial action should have been excluded from the scope of the injunctions.' 'Whether order 2 was unclear, internally inconsistent or ambiguous.' 'Whether order 3 was ambiguous in its use of the expression "bona fide".' "Whether Collier J acted on a wrong principle by treating the choice as one between the parties' draft orders rather than exercising the Court's discretion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was not attended by sufficient doubt and the applicants did not demonstrate substantial injustice if leave were refused. It was reasonably open to Collier J to make Australia-wide interlocutory injunctions due to the risk of industrial action at other Hutchinson sites; no exclusion for protected industrial action was required on the evidence before her Honour; any uncertainty in order 2 could be addressed through liberty to apply and did not establish substantial injustice; order 3's use of "bona fide" referred to a subjective state of mind; and there was no basis to conclude that Collier J failed to exercise her discretion...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']