John Holland Pty Ltd ACN 004 282 268 v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 324

John Holland Pty Ltd ACN 004 282 268 v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 324

The application for variation is rejected because the affidavit evidence supporting urgent access is abstract and lacks concrete particulars, there is a sufficient prima facie case for preserving the status quo pending the imminent trial, and rapid final hearing and determination justifies maintenance of the interlocutory restraint rather than allowing union entry.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing—variation Application, Order
Outcome
Application for variation of interlocutory order dismissed
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'union Right of Entry' 'workplace Safety Complaints' 'greenfield Agreements' 'construction of Agreements']
['employment' 'industrial Relations'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'union Right of Entry' 'workplace Safety Complaints' 'greenfield Agreements' 'construction of Agreements']

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

Application to Vary Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing—variation Application, Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interlocutory injunction should be varied to allow union organisers access to worksite under s 760 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)' 'Whether complaints raised by union organiser justify variation of injunction' 'Whether arguments regarding construction of Greenfield Agreements affect validity of s 760 notices']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for variation is rejected because the affidavit evidence supporting urgent access is abstract and lacks concrete particulars, there is a sufficient prima facie case for preserving the status quo pending the imminent trial, and rapid final hearing and determination justifies maintenance of the interlocutory restraint rather than allowing union entry.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of interlocutory order dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for variation of the interlocutory order made by the Court on 6 March 2009 is dismissed.']