Grocon v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 76 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

SCI 2012 4743

BETWEEN

GROCON CONSTRUCTORS (VICTORIA) PTY LTD
(ABN 98 148 006 624) & ORS
Plaintiffs
and

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION & ORS

(which is sued on its own behalf and pursuant to Order 18 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 as representing:

a)   all persons who were on 17 August 2012 or are now, or have at any time since 17 August 2012 been present at the picket lines at the premises of McNab Avenue, Footscray, in the State of Victoria;

b)     all persons who were on 22 August 2012 or are now, or have at any time since 22 August 2012 been present at the picket lines at the premises of the Emporium construction site between Little Bourke St and Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, in the State of Victoria)

Defendants

---

JUDGE:

Cavanough J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATES OF HEARING:

7, 13, 19, 20 and 21 August, 14 and 15 November 2013 and 28 February 2014

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

31 March 2014

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Grocon & Ors v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Ors (No 2)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2014] VSC 134

Revision No 1 (31 March 2014)

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Breaches of restraining orders – Parties – Contempt proceedings commenced by private companies – Attorney-General joined as co-plaintiff shortly after commencement – Late application by defendant for removal of Attorney-General – Whether Attorney-General a proper or necessary party – Discretionary factors – Application for removal refused – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 r 9.06(a).

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Breaches of further restraining orders – Parties – Further contempt proceedings brought by private companies – Application by Attorney-General to be joined as a co-plaintiff – Attorney-General’s standing – Discretionary factors – Application for joinder granted – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 r 9.06(b).

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Breaches of restraining orders - Blocking access to building sites – Hindering deliveries to building sites – Whether civil contempt or criminal contempt – Industrial context –Relevant sentencing principles – Objective seriousness – Proportionality – Consistency – Totality – General and specific deterrence – Whether convictions should be recorded – Quantum of fines – Orders as to costs.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the first to third plaintiffs Mr M McDonald SC, Mr P M O’Grady, Mr P Wheelahan Herbert Smith Freehills
For the fourth plaintiff Mr S Wood SC, Mr J Snaden, Mr B Jellis and, on 14 and 15 November 2013, Ms R Sweet Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
For the first defendant Mr P Morrissey SC, 
Ms R Shann
Slater and Gordon

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. Three applications by summons, each alleging contempts of court in the form of disobedience to various orders of this Court, have been brought against the defendant, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”), during the course of this proceeding.  The applications have an…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grocon v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No... 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
[2014] VSC 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Grocon v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2), the case revolved around multiple proceedings concerning alleged breaches of restraining orders in an industrial context. Grocon, a private company, initiated contempt proceedings against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), alleging that the union had violated restraining orders by blocking access to building sites and hindering deliveries. Shortly after the proceedings commenced, the Attorney-General was joined as a co-plaintiff. The CFMEU sought to remove the Attorney-General from the proceedings on the basis that they were not a proper or necessary party, while the Attorney-General applied to be joined in subsequent contempt proceedings.

The primary legal issues centred around the proper party standing in contempt proceedings, the criteria for joining a party, and the appropriate quantum of fines and costs in such cases. The court had to determine whether the Attorney-General was a proper or necessary party in the initial proceedings, and whether they had standing to join the subsequent proceedings. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentencing principles applicable to contempt of court in an industrial context, including the objective seriousness of the contempt, proportionality, consistency, totality, and deterrence, and the appropriate quantum of fines and costs.

The court held that the Attorney-General was a proper and necessary party in the contempt proceedings as they represented the public interest in upholding the rule of law. The application to remove the Attorney-General was dismissed, and the application for the Attorney-General to join the subsequent proceedings was granted. The court found that the breaches of the restraining orders constituted criminal contempt due to their objective seriousness, and the fines imposed reflected the need for general and specific deterrence. The court ordered the union to pay significant fines and costs to both Grocon and the Attorney-General.

The final orders included the CFMEU being fined $1,500,000 for the first set of breaches and $1,000,000 for the second set of breaches, along with costs to be determined. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining the rule of law and the role of the Attorney-General in contempt proceedings.

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.