Springdale Comfort Pty Ltd v Electrical Trades Union of Workers (Perth) & Anor [1986] FCA 187

Springdale Comfort Pty Ltd v Electrical Trades Union of Workers (Perth) & Anor [1986] FCA 187

The applicant failed to establish any evidence that either respondent had engaged in conduct in concert with others in a manner relevant to s.45D(1), or that any such conduct was for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the applicant's business. There was no serious question to be tried against either respondent for interlocutory injunctive relief.

Parties
Applicant: Springdale Comfort Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent: Electrical Trades Union of Workers of Australia (Western Australian Branch), Perth; Second Respondent: Keith Cooper
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Determination
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Secondary Boycott, Interlocutory Injunction, Section 45 D of the Trade Practices Act 1974
Trade Practices Industrial Law Secondary Boycott Interlocutory Injunction Section 45 D of the Trade Practices Act 1974

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Springdale Comfort Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Electrical Trades Union of Workers of Australia (Western Australian Branch), Perth

First Respondent

Keith Cooper

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried under s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 regarding alleged black-ban (secondary boycott) hindering or preventing electricity supply to the applicant's building site.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents engaged in concerted conduct to hinder or prevent the supply of goods/services within the meaning of s.45D.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct was engaged in for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any evidence that either respondent had engaged in conduct in concert with others in a manner relevant to s.45D(1), or that any such conduct was for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the applicant's business. There was no serious question to be tried against either respondent for interlocutory injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's claim for interlocutory relief by way of injunctions is dismissed.
  • The costs of the hearing for interlocutory relief are reserved.