Evenco Pty Ltd v Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation (Qld Branch)

Evenco Pty Ltd, a civil construction company, was involved in a legal dispute with the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation (Qld Branch), a union representing construction workers. The case, heard in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, revolved around the interpretation and enforcement of an undertaking given by the union to the court. The union had provided an undertaking to refrain from certain activities, including impeding the performance of, procuring the breach of, or preventing the making of any lawful agreement. The dispute centred on whether the inclusion of specific terms, such as "lawful agreement" or "lawful supply," made the undertaking uncertain or ambiguous, and whether these terms were so broad that they rendered the undertaking unenforceable. Additionally, the case addressed the union's alleged breach of the undertaking and the appropriate penalties for such a breach.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were the clarity and enforceability of the undertaking. The court needed to determine whether the terms "lawful agreement" or "lawful supply" introduced ambiguity into the undertaking, and if the inclusion of phrases like "impeding the performance of," "procuring the breach of," or "preventing the making of any lawful agreement" made the undertaking unenforceable. Another significant issue was whether the term "and/or" created any ambiguity. The court also had to consider whether the union had indeed breached the undertaking and whether the penalties imposed were justified.

In addressing these issues, the court held that the undertaking was clear and enforceable. The term "lawful" was defined within the context of the undertaking itself, making it evident what actions were proscribed. The court noted that the undertaking must be construed with regard to the factual context in which it was made, and the true meaning was readily ascertainable. The inclusion of terms like "lawful agreement" or "lawful supply" did not introduce ambiguity, as their meaning was obvious and must have been within the contemplation of the union at the time the undertaking was given. The court also found that the union had breached the undertaking and upheld the trial judge's findings on the evidence. Regarding the penalties, the court determined that the fines were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not taken into account irrelevant considerations.

The court dismissed both appeals, with costs awarded to Evenco Pty Ltd. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's decisions on the clarity of the undertaking, the union's breach, and the appropriateness of the penalties imposed.