BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v CFMEU

[2000] FCA 1963

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v CFMEU

BHP STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD and OTHERS v CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION and OTHERS

Q 9 OF 2000

KIEFEL J
2 JUNE 2000
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 9 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

BHP STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD
ACN 000 019 625
First Applicant

BHP COAL PTY LTD
ACN 010 595 721
Second Applicant

HAY POINT SERVICES PTY LTD
CAN 009 836 800
Third Applicant

AND:

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
First Respondent

COLLIERY OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
Third Respondent

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

KIEFEL

DATE OF ORDER:

2 JUNE 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The third respondent’s application for costs be dismissed.

2.The third respondent pay the first, second and third applicants’ costs of the proceedings today.

3.Costs to be taxed, if not agreed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 9 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

BHP STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD
ACN 000 019 625
First Applicant

BHP COAL PTY LTD
ACN 010 595 721
Second Applicant

HAY POINT SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 009 836 800
Third Applicant

AND:

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
First Respondent

COLLIERY OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
Third Respondent

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONICS, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	KIEFEL
DATE:	2 JUNE 2000
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EX TEMPORE

1. What here occurred was the incursion of a small amount of costs, firstly in connection with injunction proceedings brought under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), and then with respect to threatened proceedings for contempt.  The proceedings did not eventuate as against the third respondent, and I accept the submissions for the applicant that, regardless of how widely one views the term “proceedings”, and whether it encompasses steps taken in anticipation of litigation which later ensues, even collaterally, a following proceeding is necessary to attract an order for costs. 

2. I add that if an order for costs were available, I would not be minded, on the material before me, to make such order.  The third respondent was in attendance in Court on 9 February 2000, on the adjourned hearing of an injunction, and its attendance was necessary in any event.  The steps taken afterwards, so far as they are disclosed, would appear to me to be minor.  If it took additional steps to obtain advices, I would still not think that those steps would warrant the bringing of an application for costs.  The only substantial costs that I can see have been incurred are those in connection with the bringing of this application. 

3. The application for costs is refused.  I order the third respondent pay the first, second and third applicants’ costs of the proceedings today.  Costs to be taxed, failing agreement.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel.

Associate:

Dated:             2 June 2000

Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr W. Sofronoff QC with Mr L. Kelly
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Reidy & Tonkin
Date of Hearing:	2 June 2000
Date of Judgment:	2 June 2000