Leon Laidley Pty Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia

In the Federal Court of Australia, Leon Laidley Pty Ltd, a company involved in the distribution of petroleum products, including bulk fuel, sought an interlocutory injunction against the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the New South Wales Branch of the Union, and certain union officials. The applicant alleged that the union and its officials had engaged in conduct that hindered and prevented the supply of petroleum products to the applicant, causing substantial loss or damage to its business. The union, in turn, argued that it was not properly joined as a party and that the applicant had not established a prima facie case for the relief sought.

The court was required to determine whether the union was a person within the meaning of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, whether the union and its officials were acting in concert with each other, whether their conduct hindered or prevented the supply of bulk fuel, and whether their conduct was engaged in for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the applicant's business. The court also needed to assess whether the dominant purpose of the conduct was related to conditions of employment and whether the conduct was likely to have the effect of causing substantial loss or damage. Additionally, the court had to consider the meaning of "likely" and whether the applicant had established a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court found that the union and its officials were properly joined as parties and that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the relief sought. The court also found that the union and its officials were acting in concert with each other and that their conduct hindered or prevented the supply of bulk fuel to the applicant. The court held that the dominant purpose of the conduct was to cause substantial loss or damage to the applicant's business, and that the conduct was likely to have the effect of causing such loss or damage. The court further found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, and accordingly, made the orders as set out in the order section.