White v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2010] FCA 835

White v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2010] FCA 835

Because the elements of ss 38 and 43(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) are different, no double jeopardy issue arises, nor is there abuse of process. Where alleged contravening conduct can engage separate statutory provisions, claims may proceed, and the respondents' motion is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Michelle White; First Respondent: Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union; Second Respondent: Ralph Edwards; Third Respondent: Robert Graauwmans; Fourth Respondent: Maurie Hill; Fifth Respondent: Stephen Long; Sixth Respondent: Brendan Murphy; Seventh Respondent: Michael Powell; Eighth Respondent: Shaun Reardon; Ninth Respondent: Gareth Stephenson; Tenth Respondent: Alex Tadic
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Motion / Interlocutory
Outcome
Respondents' motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Motion, Double Jeopardy Principle, Abuse of Process, Construction of Statutory Provisions
Industrial Law Strike Out Motion Double Jeopardy Principle Abuse of Process Construction of Statutory Provisions

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle White

Applicant

Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union

First Respondent

Ralph Edwards

Second Respondent

Robert Graauwmans

Third Respondent

Maurie Hill

Fourth Respondent

Stephen Long

Fifth Respondent

Brendan Murphy

Sixth Respondent

Michael Powell

Seventh Respondent

Shaun Reardon

Eighth Respondent

Gareth Stephenson

Ninth Respondent

Alex Tadic

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Motion / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations based on same conduct offend the principle of double jeopardy
  2. 2 Whether allegations constitute an abuse of process
  3. 3 Proper construction of Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) s 43(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the elements of ss 38 and 43(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) are different, no double jeopardy issue arises, nor is there abuse of process. Where alleged contravening conduct can engage separate statutory provisions, claims may proceed, and the respondents' motion is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion dismissed

Orders

  • The respondents be given leave to file and serve the amended notice of motion in the form of the notice filed in court today.
  • The respondents' notice of motion as amended be dismissed.