Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd & Anor v The Seamens Union of Australasia & Ors [1981] FCA 198

Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd & Anor v The Seamens Union of Australasia & Ors [1981] FCA 198

The applicants have established a prima facie case of the respondents acting in concert to prevent the export of uranium, which is likely to contravene s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the grant of interlocutory injunction.

Parties
Applicant: Mary Kathleen Uranium Limited; First Respondent: The Seamen's Union of Australasia, Queensland Branch, Union of Employees; Second Respondent: The Seamen's Union of Australia; Applicant: Attorney-General of Queensland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1981
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction Under Trade Practices Act 1974 S.45 D / Interlocutory (interim Relief)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of applicants.
Legal Topics
Secondary Boycott, Interlocutory Injunction, Section 45 D Trade Practices Act 1974
Trade Practices Labour Law Secondary Boycott Interlocutory Injunction Section 45 D Trade Practices Act 1974

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Kathleen Uranium Limited

Applicant

The Seamen's Union of Australasia, Queensland Branch, Union of Employees

First Respondent

The Seamen's Union of Australia

Second Respondent

Attorney-General of Queensland

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction Under Trade Practices Act 1974 S.45 D / Interlocutory (interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in conduct in concert for the purpose and with the effect or likely effect of preventing or substantially hindering the applicant from engaging in trade or commerce between Australia and places outside Australia, contrary to s 45D(1A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
  2. 2 Whether a prima facie case for interlocutory relief is established.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of interlocutory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants have established a prima facie case of the respondents acting in concert to prevent the export of uranium, which is likely to contravene s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the grant of interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of applicants.

Orders

  • Respondents restrained, until further order, from aiding or inducing any person to withhold labour from the Queensland Tug Co. Pty. Limited in relation to ships carrying applicant's uranium concentrate out of Brisbane, so as to prevent or hinder applicant's export trade, except as permitted by s.45D(3) of the Act.
  • Respondents similarly restrained from aiding or inducing any person to delay ships connected with applicant's shipments, except as permitted by s.45D(3) of the Act.