BGC Contracting Pty Ltd v The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BGC Contracting Pty Ltd v The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy
Union of Workers [2004] FCA 417

BGC CONTRACTING PTY LTD v THE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION OF WORKERS
W 38 of 2004

CARR J
18 MARCH 2004
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W38 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

BGC CONTRACTING PTY LTD
APPLICANT

AND:

THE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION OF WORKERS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Until further order, the respondent, whether by its officers or authorised representatives, be restrained from exercising, or purporting to exercise any right of entry to the site known as the Ammonia Plant Construction Project on the Burrup Peninsula, Karratha, in the State of Western Australia for the purposes of holding discussions with employees of the first or second applicants or for the other purposes referred to in s 49I of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) in relation to those employees or their employment.

2.Until further order, the respondent, whether by its officers or authorised representatives, be restrained from taking any further steps in proceedings number CR13 of 2004 in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in relation to costs or otherwise.

3.        The applicants file and serve any amended Statement of Claim by 26 March 2004.

4.        The respondent file and serve a Defence and Cross-Claim by 9 April 2004.

5.The applicants file and serve any Reply to Defence and any Defence to Cross-Claim by 20 April 2004.

6.The applicants may file and serve any further affidavits in support of the first applicant’s motion for continuing interlocutory relief and any further written submissions on or before 25 March 2004;

7.The respondent may file and serve its affidavits in response and any further written submissions on or before 1 April 2004;

8.The first applicant’s motion for continuing interlocutory relief be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed.

9.        Costs of today’s hearing be reserved.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W38 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

BGC CONTRACTING PTY LTD
APPLICANT

AND:

THE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION OF WORKERS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE:

18 MARCH 2004

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 20 February 2004, in an ex tempore judgment given on that date, I refused an application by the applicant for an interlocutory injunction.  The interlocutory injunction sought was to restrain the respondent, by its officers or authorised representatives, from taking any further steps in certain proceedings in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) and also to restrain them from exercising rights of entry which they claimed under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (“the State Act”). But, in refusing such relief I reserved liberty to the applicant to renew its application on two days written notice. It has now…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BGC Contracting Pty Ltd v The Construction Forestry Mining a... and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] FCA 417
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BGC Contracting Pty Ltd and another applicant brought a motion before the Federal Court against CFMEU, an industrial union. The applicants sought an injunction to prevent the union from entering the Ammonia Plant Construction Project site in Karratha, Western Australia, and from taking further steps in industrial commission proceedings. The legal issues for the court to decide included whether the union had the right to enter the site and whether the applicants were entitled to an injunction. The court found that the union did not have the right to enter the site and that the applicants were entitled to an injunction. The union's right to enter the site was limited by the terms of the applicable industrial award and by the applicants' contractual rights. The applicants had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured the grant of interlocutory relief. The court made orders restraining the union from entering the site or taking further steps in the industrial commission proceedings. The applicants were also required to file and serve an amended Statement of Claim and the union was required to file and serve a Defence and Cross-Claim. The applicants' motion for continuing interlocutory relief was listed for a hearing on a date to be fixed. The costs of the hearing were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Until further order, the respondent, whether by its officers or authorised representatives, be restrained from exercising, or purporting to exercise any right of entry to the site known as the Ammonia Plant Construction Project on the Burrup Peninsula, Karratha, in the State of Western Australia for the purposes of holding discussions with employees of the first or second applicants or for the other purposes referred to in s 49I of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) in relation to those employees or their employment.

2. Until further order, the respondent, whether by its officers or authorised representatives, be restrained from taking any further steps in proceedings number CR13 of 2004 in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in relation to costs or otherwise.

3. The applicants file and serve any amended Statement of Claim by 26 March 2004.

4. The respondent file and serve a Defence and Cross-Claim by 9 April 2004.

5. The applicants file and serve any Reply to Defence and any Defence to Cross-Claim by 20 April 2004.

6. The applicants may file and serve any further affidavits in support of the first applicant’s motion for continuing interlocutory relief and any further written submissions on or before 25 March 2004;

7. The respondent may file and serve its affidavits in response and any further written submissions on or before 1 April 2004;

8. The first applicant’s motion for continuing interlocutory relief be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed.

9. Costs of today’s hearing be reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.