Epitoma Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1984] FCA 202

Epitoma Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1984] FCA 202

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for interlocutory relief under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974, as the respondents' conduct was likely done for a dominant purpose substantially related to improving employment conditions; even if a prima facie case existed, balance of convenience and applicant's failure to register as a foreign company justified refusal of relief.

Parties
Applicant: EPITOMA PTY. LIMITED; First Respondent: THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION; Second Respondent: JACK O'TOOLE; Third Respondent: DICK ANNEAR; Fourth Respondent: NELSON WILLIAMS
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
Boycott, Interim Injunction, Industrial Dispute, Employment Conditions, Acting in Concert, Dominant Purpose, Balance of Convenience
Trade Practices Industrial Law Boycott Interim Injunction Industrial Dispute Employment Conditions Acting in Concert Dominant Purpose +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EPITOMA PTY. LIMITED

Applicant

THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

First Respondent

JACK O'TOOLE

Second Respondent

DICK ANNEAR

Third Respondent

NELSON WILLIAMS

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in conduct breaching section 45D(1A) of Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether a defence under section 45D(3)(b) is likely to succeed
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'acting in concert' and 'dominant purpose' within section 45D

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for interlocutory relief under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974, as the respondents' conduct was likely done for a dominant purpose substantially related to improving employment conditions; even if a prima facie case existed, balance of convenience and applicant's failure to register as a foreign company justified refusal of relief.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory relief is dismissed
  • Applicant to be heard on costs and further directions