Keppel Prince Engineering Pty Ltd v AFMEPKIU [2001] FCA 1637

Keppel Prince Engineering Pty Ltd v AFMEPKIU [2001] FCA 1637

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not establish a serious question to be tried against the unions. There was no evidence that, after Commissioner Foggo's 9 November 2001 order, the unions incited or encouraged members to strike, and the order did not impose a positive obligation on the unions to undo prior encouragement. The industrial action concerned the engagement or redeployment of Kempe employees, not claims in respect of employees covered by the Keppel Prince agreements, so no serious question arose under s 170MN. There was also no serious question that the unions were committing or threatening a tort, and tort relief would in any event require a s 166A...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Urgent Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in an Industrial Relations Matter / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The application for interlocutory injunctions was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'industrial Action' 'australian Industrial Relations Commission Orders' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'section 127 Orders' 'section 170 MN Industrial Action' 'section 166 a Certificates' 'inducing Breach of Contract or Interference With Contractual Relations']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'equity'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'industrial Action' 'australian Industrial Relations Commission Orders' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'section 127 Orders' 'section 170 MN Industrial Action' 'section 166 a Certificates' 'inducing Breach of Contract or Interference With Contractual Relations']

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 Urgent Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in an Industrial Relations Matter / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the respondent unions had engaged in conduct constituting a contravention of Commissioner Foggo's order made on 9 November 2001 under s 127 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)." 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the respondent unions had engaged in industrial action in contravention of s 170MN(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'Whether interlocutory relief should be granted to restrain the respondent unions from committing a tort, and whether a certificate under s 166A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) was required.' 'If a serious question to be tried existed, whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not establish a serious question to be tried against the unions. There was no evidence that, after Commissioner Foggo's 9 November 2001 order, the unions incited or encouraged members to strike, and the order did not impose a positive obligation on the unions to undo prior encouragement. The industrial action concerned the engagement or redeployment of Kempe employees, not claims in respect of employees covered by the Keppel Prince agreements, so no serious question arose under s 170MN. There was also no serious question that the unions were committing or threatening a tort, and tort relief would in any event require a s 166A...

Court Disposition

The application for interlocutory injunctions was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory injunctions be dismissed.']