Regency Constructions Pty Ltd v Australian Building Construction Employees & Builders Labourers Federation & Ors [1983] FCA 294

Regency Constructions Pty Ltd v Australian Building Construction Employees & Builders Labourers Federation & Ors [1983] FCA 294

The applicant made out a prima facie case of contravention of s.45D and the respondents failed to satisfy the court that the s.45D(3) exemption applied at this stage. The applicant is suffering substantial loss and should be granted an interlocutory injunction.

Parties
Applicant: Regency Constructions Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent: The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation; Second Respondent: The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia; Third Respondent: Harold Robert Olsen; Fourth Respondent: Jim Reed; Fifth Respondent: Rick Todd; Sixth Respondent: Greg Derich
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Secondary Boycott, Interlocutory Injunction, Trade Practices Act S.45 D, Trade Practices Act S.45 D(3) Exemption, Industrial Action
Trade Practices Competition Law Labour Law Secondary Boycott Interlocutory Injunction Trade Practices Act S.45 D Trade Practices Act S.45 D(3) Exemption Industrial Action

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regency Constructions Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation

First Respondent

The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia

Second Respondent

Harold Robert Olsen

Third Respondent

Jim Reed

Fourth Respondent

Rick Todd

Fifth Respondent

Greg Derich

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in concerted conduct with the purpose of causing substantial loss to the applicant in contravention of s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether respondents are exempted under s.45D(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant made out a prima facie case of contravention of s.45D and the respondents failed to satisfy the court that the s.45D(3) exemption applied at this stage. The applicant is suffering substantial loss and should be granted an interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • The first and second respondents, their officers, members, servants or agents, and the third to sixth respondents restrained, alone or in concert with others or trade unions, from hindering or preventing specified subcontractors supplying goods or services to the applicant at Mount Lawley and Fremantle sites.
  • Also restrained from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, inducing or attempting to induce any person or corporation to withhold supply by the specified subcontractors to the applicant at those sites.