Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd

Case [2015] HCATrans 98

[2015] HCATrans 098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne   No M118 of 2014

B e t w e e n -

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION

Applicant

and

GROCON CONSTRUCTORS (VICTORIA) PTY LTD (ABN 98 148 006 624)

First Respondent

GROCON (FCAD) PTY LTD (ACN 143 621 514)

Second Respondent

GROCON CONSTRUCTORS (VIC) PTY LTD (ABN 88 127 996 436)

Third Respondent

ATTORNEY‑GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Fourth Respondent

HAYNE J

AT MELBOURNE ON THURSDAY, 30 APRIL 2015, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

____________________

HIS HONOUR:   On 13 February 2015, Justice Kiefel and I ordered that an application by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union for special leave to appeal to the Court be refused with costs.  By summons dated 24 April 2015 the Union seeks an order that the order pronounced on 13 February be corrected to provide that no order be made as to costs.  CFMEU indicated that it was content that the matter be resolved without oral hearing.  We are of the opinion that the summons should be dismissed.  I publish our joint reasons.  We direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the summons.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd [2015] HCATrans 98
Case
[2015] HCATrans 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an application by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) seeking to correct an earlier order regarding costs. The original order, made on 13 February 2015, had refused the CFMEU's application for special leave to appeal with costs awarded against the Union. The CFMEU subsequently sought to have this order amended to provide for no order as to costs.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the order for costs made on 13 February 2015 should be corrected. The CFMEU indicated its willingness for the matter to be resolved without an oral hearing.

The Court, in its joint reasons, determined that the summons seeking the correction of the costs order should be dismissed. The Court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the original order for costs was to stand.

Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the CFMEU's summons.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.