Alfred v Walter Construction Group Ltd [2003] FCA 993

Alfred v Walter Construction Group Ltd [2003] FCA 993

There is no real and appreciable danger that requiring the respondents to file a defence could incriminate them in subsequent proceedings; thus, the motions for relief from pleading a defence are refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Motions Seeking Relief From Pleading a Defence / Interlocutory
Outcome
Motions dismissed; costs to applicant in the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'pleading and Procedure' 'civil Penalty Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'industrial Relations'] ['privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'pleading and Procedure' 'civil Penalty Proceedings']

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

Motions Seeking Relief From Pleading a Defence / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents are excused from filing a defence on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination in civil penalty proceedings under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 170NC where no penalty is sought.' 'Whether the risk of future penalty proceedings justifies excusing respondents from pleading a defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no real and appreciable danger that requiring the respondents to file a defence could incriminate them in subsequent proceedings; thus, the motions for relief from pleading a defence are refused.

Court Disposition

Motions dismissed; costs to applicant in the proceeding.

Orders

  • ['The notices of motion dated 29 August 2003 be dismissed.' "Costs of the motions be the applicant's costs in the proceeding."]