Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2011] FCA 557

Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2011] FCA 557

The respondent's contempt was public, serious and substantial: despite prompt service and awareness of the Court's orders, it maintained a blockade for a further week, placed or left obstacles and union vehicles near the site entrance, and consciously disregarded the orders to achieve its industrial objective. Deterrence, the respondent's prior contempt in Bovis Lend Lease, the limited mitigating weight of its provocation argument and legal expenses, its lack of apology, and the related $100,000 BCII Act penalty justified a fine of $150,000, together with indemnity costs of $150,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court / Penalty Following Respondent's Guilty Plea to Contempt of Court
Outcome
The respondent was declared guilty of contempt and fined $150,000; the respondent was ordered to pay the fine into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to pay the applicant $150,000 by way of indemnity costs; the applicant's motion was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['penalty for Contempt of Court' 'contravention of Court Orders' 'blockade of Construction Site' 'deterrence' 'indemnity Costs']
['contempt of Court' 'building and Construction'] ['penalty for Contempt of Court' 'contravention of Court Orders' 'blockade of Construction Site' 'deterrence' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Contempt of Court / Penalty Following Respondent's Guilty Plea to Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was guilty of contempt of paragraphs 1(a), 1(d) and 1(e) of the order made on 20 May 2010.' 'What fine should be imposed on the respondent for its contempt of Court.' 'What considerations should be taken into account in fixing a penalty for contempt, including deterrence, prior convictions, financial means, apology, indemnity costs and a related pecuniary penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's contempt was public, serious and substantial: despite prompt service and awareness of the Court's orders, it maintained a blockade for a further week, placed or left obstacles and union vehicles near the site entrance, and consciously disregarded the orders to achieve its industrial objective. Deterrence, the respondent's prior contempt in Bovis Lend Lease, the limited mitigating weight of its provocation argument and legal expenses, its lack of apology, and the related $100,000 BCII Act penalty justified a fine of $150,000, together with indemnity costs of $150,000.

Court Disposition

The respondent was declared guilty of contempt and fined $150,000; the respondent was ordered to pay the fine into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to pay the applicant $150,000 by way of indemnity costs; the applicant's motion was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is guilty of contempt of paragraphs 1(a), 1(d) and 1(e) of the order of the Court made on 20 May 2010 during the period between 10:13 am on 21 May 2010 and about 1:38 pm on 28 May 2010, during which the respondent by itself, its officers, employees or agents did not refrain from preventing or...