F. Sharkey and Company Pty Ltd & Ors v. Fisher, Joseph & Ors [1980] FCA 181
The Trade Practices Act 1974 does not bind the Crown in right of State of New South Wales or its instrumentalities, including the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. Where relief against parties to a contract, arrangement, or understanding to which the Crown or its agency is a party would prejudicially affect the Crown, such relief cannot be granted. Therefore, the applicants were not entitled to injunctive relief against the union and its officials in respect of agreements and conduct involving the Board or the Minister, and the proceedings must be dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 November 1980
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Injunctive Relief and Damages / Final Hearing, Judgment
- Outcome
- proceedings dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['secondary Boycott' 'injunctive Relief' 'statutory Interpretation' 'crown Immunity' 'public Authorities' 'industrial Agreements']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunctive Relief and Damages / Final Hearing, Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Does s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 bind the Crown in right of the State of New South Wales and its instrumentalities?' 'Is the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board an agency or emanation of the Crown?' 'Whether members of a union engaged in conduct that hinders or prevents acquisition of services by private contractors, in breach of s.45D.' 'Is injunctive relief available against the union and its officials given the involvement of the Crown?']
Ratio Decidendi
The Trade Practices Act 1974 does not bind the Crown in right of State of New South Wales or its instrumentalities, including the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. Where relief against parties to a contract, arrangement, or understanding to which the Crown or its agency is a party would prejudicially affect the Crown, such relief cannot be granted. Therefore, the applicants were not entitled to injunctive relief against the union and its officials in respect of agreements and conduct involving the Board or the Minister, and the proceedings must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
proceedings dismissed
Orders
- ['Proceedings against fourth and fifth respondents (Minister and Board) set aside; applicants to pay their costs.' 'Applicants to pay costs of first, second and third respondents.' 'Claims for injunctive relief dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment