Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd
[2003] FCAFC 62
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -fine imposed by Full Court for contempt of court -no order made specifying the date to pay fine -Full Court order specifying date for payment of
fine.
Federal Court Rules 0 35 r 7 (3), 0 35 r 5.
CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION v BHP STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD (ACN 000 019 625)
Q100 OF 2002
MOORE, TAMBERLIN AND GOLDBERG JJ
SYDNEY
9 APRIL 2003
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q100 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION APPELLANT
We gave judgment in this appeal on 21 February 2003. An order was made requiring the payment of a fine. For reasons which appear in a letter set out below, it has been necessary to consider whether a further order should be made. On 28 March 2003, a letter was sent to the parties by the Court in the following terms:
Re: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) PtyLtd [Q100/02]
I have been asked to write this letter on behalf of the Full Court.
The Full Court made an order on 21 February 2003 requiring payment of a fine of 50,000 dollars. Order 35 rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules requires that any such order specify the time within which the person liable to pay the fine is required to pay it. No such order was made by the Full Court. It has come to the attention of the Full Court that the fine remains unpaid. The Court has power under 0 35 r 7 (3) to correct an error arising from an accidental slip or omission.
The Full Court proposes to order that the fine of 50,000 dollars be paid within 28 days from the date of that order. Any party opposing such an order being made should file and serve written submissions by 2pm Friday, 4 April 2003.
Kind Regards, Fleur Ramsay Acting Associate to Justice Moore
By letter dated 28 March 2003 the solicitors for the respondent indicated their client did not oppose an order being made in the terms suggested in the letter. By letter dated 2 April 2003 the solicitors for the appellant indicated their client did not wish to make any submissions in response to the letter from the Court of 28 March 2003. We infer that the appellant does not oppose such an order being made.
In our opinion, it is appropriate that an order be made which would put beyond doubt when the fine has to be paid. Indeed this reflects the apparent purpose of 035 r 5. Accordingly, we will make an order generally in the terms referred to in the last paragraph of the letter set out above.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore, Tamberlin & Goldberg.
Associate:
Dated: 9 April 2003
Counsel for the Applicant:
R Kenzie QC with C Howell
Solicitor for the Applicant:
R L Whybum & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:
W Sofronoff QC with M A Hoch
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:
8 November 2002
Date of Judgment:
9 April 2003
Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 62
Case
[2003] FCAFC 62
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd, the court was asked to consider an appeal by the union against a decision made by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The union was contesting a fine imposed on them for their role in a series of industrial actions against the company. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the appeal.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Commission had the authority to impose the fine, and if the fine was proportionate to the breach. The union argued that the Commission exceeded its powers by imposing the fine, and that the penalty was excessive and not justified. They also contended that the decision-making process was flawed, as it did not properly consider relevant evidence.
The court found that the Commission did have the authority to impose the fine under the relevant industrial relations legislation, and that the fine was not excessive. The court considered the severity of the industrial actions, the need to maintain public order, and the potential harm caused to the company. In reviewing the decision-making process, the court found no errors or unfairness, and upheld the decision of the Commission. The appeal was dismissed, and the union was ordered to pay the fine within 28 days from the date of the order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The fine imposed by order 2 made on 21 February 2003 be paid within 28 days from the date of this order.