Mudginberry Station Pty Ltd v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1985] FCA 237

Mudginberry Station Pty Ltd v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1985] FCA 237

The applicant has demonstrated that there is a serious question to be tried regarding the contravention of s.45D and the availability of the defence in s.45D(3)(b). The evidence does not resolve the requisite elements of the defence; therefore, the balance of convenience favours granting interim injunctive relief.

Parties
Applicant: Mudginberri Station Pty. Limited; First Respondent: The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union; Second Respondent: Jack O'Toole; Third Respondent: Trevor Surplice; Fourth Respondent: Dick Annear; Fifth Respondent: Pat Roughan; Sixth Respondent: Meat Inspectors Association; Seventh Respondent: Gordon McColl; Eighth Respondent: Alex Thompson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1985
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory (interim Injunction)
Outcome
Interim (interlocutory) injunction granted against first to fifth respondents; application against sixth to eighth respondents stood over.
Legal Topics
Secondary Boycott, Interim Injunction, Defence Under S.45 D(3)(b), Trade Union Activity
Trade Practices Labour Law Secondary Boycott Interim Injunction Defence Under S.45 D(3)(b) Trade Union Activity

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mudginberri Station Pty. Limited

Applicant

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

First Respondent

Jack O'Toole

Second Respondent

Trevor Surplice

Third Respondent

Dick Annear

Fourth Respondent

Pat Roughan

Fifth Respondent

Meat Inspectors Association

Sixth Respondent

Gordon McColl

Seventh Respondent

Alex Thompson

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory (interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in a secondary boycott contrary to s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the defence under s.45D(3)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is available to the respondents
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain the boycott/picket

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has demonstrated that there is a serious question to be tried regarding the contravention of s.45D and the availability of the defence in s.45D(3)(b). The evidence does not resolve the requisite elements of the defence; therefore, the balance of convenience favours granting interim injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Interim (interlocutory) injunction granted against first to fifth respondents; application against sixth to eighth respondents stood over.

Orders

  • Applicant gives undertaking as to damages.
  • First to fifth respondents are restrained until final determination or further order from imposing, maintaining, giving effect to or enforcing any ban on goods/services provision to the applicant at Mudginberri Abattoirs, or from setting up/maintaining any related picket line hindering the abattoir's business.