Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2000] FCA 629

Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2000] FCA 629

The Court found that the restraining orders did not require the respondents to take positive steps to withdraw or cancel previous authorisations for stopwork meetings; as such, omission to act did not constitute a breach. However, the specific order requiring the individual respondents to provide a written notice to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Contempt Motion
Outcome
Contempt motion dismissed against all respondents except individual respondents (Johnston, Mighell, Melhem). Declaration that Johnston, Mighell and Melhem are guilty of contempt; further hearing on penalty adjourned.
Legal Topics
['breach of Court Orders' 'interpretation of Injunctive Relief' 'trade Union Conduct' 'civil V Criminal Contempt' 'compliance With Federal Court Orders']
['employment Law' 'industrial Law' 'contempt of Court'] ['breach of Court Orders' 'interpretation of Injunctive Relief' 'trade Union Conduct' 'civil V Criminal Contempt' 'compliance With Federal Court Orders']

Source-derived case record

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

Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Contempt Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether breach of a court order is deliberate in that it is not merely casual, accidental or unintentional' 'Whether contempt can be established where there is no breach on one of two possible meanings of the order' 'Whether an order restraining conduct requires positive action' 'Whether a technical breach warrants penalty']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the restraining orders did not require the respondents to take positive steps to withdraw or cancel previous authorisations for stopwork meetings; as such, omission to act did not constitute a breach. However, the specific order requiring the individual respondents to provide a written notice to the applicant was clear, mandatory and not complied with; the failure to provide such notice constituted a substantive, deliberate, and non-technical breach of the Court order, amounting to civil contempt.

Court Disposition

Contempt motion dismissed against all respondents except individual respondents (Johnston, Mighell, Melhem). Declaration that Johnston, Mighell and Melhem are guilty of contempt; further hearing on penalty adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Motion that respondents be adjudged guilty of contempt for breaches of paragraph 1 of the orders made by Whitlam J on 22 November 1999 dismissed.' 'Applicant to pay the taxed costs of the first, second and third respondents.' 'Craig Johnston, Dean Mighell and Cesar Melhem declared guilty of contempt by breaching...