John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2009] FCA 1063

John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2009] FCA 1063

Given the complexity of the applicant's Commonwealth and State legislation inconsistency arguments, there was a serious question to be tried. The evidence demonstrated a real risk of disruption of relations between the applicant and the respondents, which was undesirable for the parties and the public. The balance of convenience therefore justified limited interlocutory relief, tailored so as not unduly to hamper the respondents' safety role.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Proceedings Alleging Breaches of Commonwealth Workplace Legislation / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Limited interlocutory relief granted; an order was to be made in terms of a draft to be settled by the parties and presented to the Court.
Legal Topics
['union Right of Entry' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'inconsistency Between Commonwealth and State Legislation' 'site Safety']
['industrial Law' 'workplace Relations' 'work Health and Safety' 'constitutional Law'] ['union Right of Entry' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'inconsistency Between Commonwealth and State Legislation' 'site Safety']

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 for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Proceedings Alleging Breaches of Commonwealth Workplace Legislation / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried or a prima facie case concerning alleged breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory injunctive relief restraining the respondents from entering the building site except on conditions.' "Whether any interlocutory relief should be tailored so as not unduly to hamper the respondents' safety role on the site."]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the complexity of the applicant's Commonwealth and State legislation inconsistency arguments, there was a serious question to be tried. The evidence demonstrated a real risk of disruption of relations between the applicant and the respondents, which was undesirable for the parties and the public. The balance of convenience therefore justified limited interlocutory relief, tailored so as not unduly to hamper the respondents' safety role.

Court Disposition

Limited interlocutory relief granted; an order was to be made in terms of a draft to be settled by the parties and presented to the Court.

Orders

  • ['Limited interlocutory relief should be granted, tailored so as not unduly to hamper the safety role of the respondents.' 'The Court will make an order in terms of the draft to be presented to it.']