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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment