Petersville Sleigh Ltd v. The Federated Storemen & Packers Union of Australia & Anor [1985] FCA 677

Petersville Sleigh Ltd v. The Federated Storemen & Packers Union of Australia & Anor [1985] FCA 677

There was clear prima facie evidence that the federal union and Mr. Sword, its national secretary, acted in concert to impose and maintain bans hindering the applicant's trade, in contravention of s. 45D of the Trade Practices Act. The conduct was not authorised or approved by State law in the manner required by s. 51(1)(b) of the Act. Discretionary factors and the adequacy of damages did not warrant refusing interlocutory relief.

Parties
Applicant: Petersville Sleigh Limited; First Respondent: The Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia; Second Respondent: Mr. Sword
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1985
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Practices, Secondary Boycott, Interlocutory Injunction, Trade Practices Act S 45 D, State Law Authorisation, Industrial Realities
Trade Practices Industrial Law Restrictive Practices Secondary Boycott Interlocutory Injunction Trade Practices Act S 45 D State Law Authorisation Industrial Realities

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petersville Sleigh Limited

Applicant

The Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia

First Respondent

Mr. Sword

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in conduct contravening s. 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by hindering or preventing acquisition of goods and trade or commerce involving the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether conduct was specifically authorised or approved by State law for the purposes of s. 51(1)(b) of the Trade Practices Act.
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted in light of discretionary considerations including industrial realities and adequacy of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

There was clear prima facie evidence that the federal union and Mr. Sword, its national secretary, acted in concert to impose and maintain bans hindering the applicant's trade, in contravention of s. 45D of the Trade Practices Act. The conduct was not authorised or approved by State law in the manner required by s. 51(1)(b) of the Act. Discretionary factors and the adequacy of damages did not warrant refusing interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted.

Orders

  • The First Respondent, its servants and agents, and the Second Respondent are restrained until further order from engaging in concerted conduct hindering or preventing acquisition of goods by customers from the applicant or ordering of goods by customers from the applicant where such conduct is engaged in for the...
  • The First Respondent, its servants and agents, and the Second Respondent are restrained until further order from engaging in concerted conduct for the purpose of, or having or likely to have the effect of, preventing or substantially hindering the applicant from engaging in inter-State, overseas, intra-State, or...