Iluka Resources Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Iluka Resources Limited brought an application against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and others, seeking an interlocutory injunction that would have final effect, on the basis that the respondents had contravened section 345 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court had to determine if the applicant demonstrated a strong prospect of success that the respondents had contravened section 345 of the Fair Work Act and whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of the applicant. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the applicant would suffer irreparable damage if the interlocutory injunction was not granted.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a strong prospect of success on the merits of the case. It was not satisfied that the applicant had established that the respondents had contravened section 345 of the Fair Work Act. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not lie in favour of the applicant, and that the applicant had not shown that it would suffer irreparable damage if the interlocutory injunction was not granted. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for an interlocutory injunction. The respondents’ oral application for an interlocutory injunction was also dismissed. The matter was listed for a directions hearing, and the costs of the respondents’ oral application were reserved.

The court’s final orders included abridgement of time for service of the originating application and affidavit, dismissal of both the applicant’s and respondents’ applications for an interlocutory injunction, listing of a directions hearing, reservation of costs, and liberty to apply on two days’ notice. These orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.