Lunt v Victoria International Container Terminal Limited (No 1) [2019] FCA 467

Lunt v Victoria International Container Terminal Limited (No 1) [2019] FCA 467

Even assuming that it could be established that the Union organised the picket, the evidence of Mr Lunt's involvement in the picket was not crucial or critical to the first respondent's abuse of process case, and other evidence had been led or adduced concerning the closeness of Mr Lunt's relationship with the Union. The Court was therefore not satisfied to the relatively high standard required that the interests of justice required Mr Lunt to give the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in a Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Approval of an Enterprise Agreement / Determination of Whether the Applicant Should Be Required to Answer Questions Despite an Objection Based on Exposure to a Civil Penalty
Outcome
The Court declined to require Mr Lunt to give evidence about his involvement in the picket.
Legal Topics
['self Incrimination' 'civil Penalty Exposure' 'interests of Justice' 'abuse of Process' 'enterprise Agreement Approval']
['evidence' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['self Incrimination' 'civil Penalty Exposure' 'interests of Justice' 'abuse of Process' 'enterprise Agreement Approval']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in a Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Approval of an Enterprise Agreement / Determination of Whether the Applicant Should Be Required to Answer Questions Despite an Objection Based on Exposure to a Civil Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Lunt should be required under s 128(4) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to give evidence about his involvement in a picket where that evidence may tend to prove he is liable to a civil penalty.' 'Whether the interests of justice required the evidence to be given.']

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming that it could be established that the Union organised the picket, the evidence of Mr Lunt's involvement in the picket was not crucial or critical to the first respondent's abuse of process case, and other evidence had been led or adduced concerning the closeness of Mr Lunt's relationship with the Union. The Court was therefore not satisfied to the relatively high standard required that the interests of justice required Mr Lunt to give the evidence.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to require Mr Lunt to give evidence about his involvement in the picket.

Orders

  • []