RSA Express Pty Ltd v Guilfoyle, sued in his capacity as a Work Health and Safety Prosecutor [2019] FCA 1605

RSA Express Pty Ltd v Guilfoyle, sued in his capacity as a Work Health and Safety Prosecutor [2019] FCA 1605

RSA did not establish a sufficient prima facie case that the operative (Second) Amendment to the agreement imposed a discriminatory or protectionist burden on interstate trade contrary to s 92 of the Constitution or engaged s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, and, even if arguable, the availability of damages and public interest in safety standards further militated against exercise of the discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Orders Sought Pending Trial)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'section 92 of the Constitution' 'section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act' 'grant of Injunctive Relief' 'discrimination Against Interstate Trade']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'competition Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'section 92 of the Constitution' 'section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act' 'grant of Injunctive Relief' 'discrimination Against Interstate Trade']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Orders Sought Pending Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether amendments to an agreement under s 325 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) breach s 92 of the Constitution by imposing protectionist discriminatory burdens on interstate trade' "Whether the State of Queensland is 'carrying on a business' for the purposes of s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)" 'Whether RSA Express has established a prima facie case for relief under s 92 and/or the Competition and Consumer Act' 'Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of an interlocutory injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

RSA did not establish a sufficient prima facie case that the operative (Second) Amendment to the agreement imposed a discriminatory or protectionist burden on interstate trade contrary to s 92 of the Constitution or engaged s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, and, even if arguable, the availability of damages and public interest in safety standards further militated against exercise of the discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed.']