Esso Australia Pty Ltd v The Australian Workers' UnionThe Australian Workers' Union v Esso Australia Pty LtdCitation:[2017] HCA 54Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJDate:06 Dec 2017Case Number:M185/2016, M187/2016Read more

Esso Australia Pty Ltd v The Australian Workers' UnionThe Australian Workers' Union v Esso Australia Pty LtdCitation:[2017] HCA 54Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJDate:06 Dec 2017Case Number:M185/2016, M187/2016Read more

Contravention of an order precludes satisfaction of the common requirement in s 413(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for subsequent protected industrial action; s 413(5) is not limited to extant orders at the time of the proposed action, and intent to coerce does not require subjective understanding of unlawfulness.

Parties
Applicant: Unknown Applicant; Respondent: Unknown Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Industrial Relations / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Industrial Action, Compliance With Orders, Coercive Action, Statutory Interpretation
Industrial Relations Employment Law Protected Industrial Action Compliance With Orders Coercive Action Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Applicant

Applicant

Unknown Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Relations / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contravention of an order precludes satisfaction of s 413(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for subsequent protected industrial action
  2. 2 Whether s 413(5) requires only non-contravention of extant orders at the time of proposed action
  3. 3 Whether contraventions are limited to those committed in the course of organising or engaging in the proposed action

Ratio Decidendi

Contravention of an order precludes satisfaction of the common requirement in s 413(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for subsequent protected industrial action; s 413(5) is not limited to extant orders at the time of the proposed action, and intent to coerce does not require subjective understanding of unlawfulness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed