United Motor Search Pty Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1104

United Motor Search Pty Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1104

The applicants were entitled to interlocutory relief because the deed of agreement and related correspondence supported a serious question to be tried that the first respondent had committed to a contractual arrangement with the first applicant until 2020 subject to acquisition of a larger truck, and there was also a serious question whether the refusal to continue the contractual arrangement and to permit use of the 7.0m3 truck was caused by Mr Meredith's union activities and other matters protected by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Damages were not shown to be adequate, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the applicants' position and livelihood pending trial, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Fair Work Division Proceeding Seeking Injunctive and Other Relief Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth), the Australian Consumer Law and the Independent Contractors Act 2006 (cth) / Urgent Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory relief granted.
Legal Topics
['mandatory Interlocutory Injunction' 'adverse Action' 'independent Contractors' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'contract Extension']

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

Fair Work Division Proceeding Seeking Injunctive and Other Relief Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth), the Australian Consumer Law and the Independent Contractors Act 2006 (cth) / Urgent Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the respondents took adverse action against the applicants for reasons proscribed by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried as to the existence of a contract between the first applicant and the first respondent concerning the 7.0m3 truck and an extension to 30 September 2020.' 'Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements for mandatory interlocutory injunctive relief under s 545(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy and whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief.' 'Whether a higher degree of assurance of ultimate success was required because the relief sought was mandatory interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were entitled to interlocutory relief because the deed of agreement and related correspondence supported a serious question to be tried that the first respondent had committed to a contractual arrangement with the first applicant until 2020 subject to acquisition of a larger truck, and there was also a serious question whether the refusal to continue the contractual arrangement and to permit use of the 7.0m3 truck was caused by Mr Meredith's union activities and other matters protected by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Damages were not shown to be adequate, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the applicants' position and livelihood pending trial, and the...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief granted.

Orders

  • ["Upon the provision of the usual undertakings as to damages by the applicants, until hearing and determination of this proceeding, or further order, the First Respondent will provide to the First Applicant casual cartage in accordance with its usual cyclical rostering arrangements for the First Applicant's 7.0m3...