McFadzean v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Link copied
Case Copied 77 min read

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 7980 of 1999

GAVAN McFADZEAN & ORS (according to schedule attached)

Appellants

v

CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION & ORS (according to schedule attached)

Respondents

---

JUDGES:

WARREN CJ, NETTLE and REDLICH JJA

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

9 February 2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

13 December 2007

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2007] VSCA 289

---

Tort – False imprisonment – Environmentalists partaking in anti-logging demonstration and subjected to false imprisonment by logging contractors – Elements – Perceived total restraint by joint tortfeasors – Egress – Whether forms of egress said to be available unreasonable – Claim dismissed.

Tort – Public nuisance and particular damage – Obstruction by loggers either partially or fully of public highway – Whether degree of nuisance went beyond general inconvenience – Claim dismissed.

Tort – Damages – Exemplary damages – Aggravated damages – Respondents adequately punished by order for payment of compensatory costs – No error in exercise of discretion.

Costs – Proportions of costs – Orders for proportions of costs to reflect mixed success and failure – Single order more readily facilitating taxation than costs by issues – Fair and just exercise of discretion in all the circumstances.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellants Mr B E Walters SC with
Mr K D Mueller and
Mr J M Connellan
Williams Winter
For the Respondents Mr D G Collins SC with
Mr S J Howells and
Mr M A Irving
Slater & Gordon

S C H E D U L E   O F   P A R T I E S

No 7980 of 1999

B E T W E E N:

GAVAN MICHAEL McFADZEAN               Firstnamed Appellant (Firstnamed Plaintiff)

KRISTEN LEES  Secondnamed Appellant (Secondnamed Plaintiff)

TESSA JACKSON  Thirdnamed Appellant (Thirdnamed Plaintiff)

DONNA GROSS  Fourthnamed Appellant (Fifthnamed Plaintiff)

ALEXANDER JOHN BOWLES  Fifthnamed Appellant (Sixthnamed Plaintiff)

LEIGH DWAN  Sixthnamed Appellant (Seventhnamed Plaintiff)

AMY EPSTEIN  Seventhnamed Appellant (Eighthnamed Plaintiff)

PAUL ANTHONY FOWKES  Eighthnamed Appellant (Ninthnamed Plaintiff)

ELI GREIGNinthnamed Appellant (Tenthnamed Plaintiff)

JULIE ANNE COLSON  Tenthnamed Appellant (Eleventhnamed Plaintiff)

JANINE DAWSON  Eleventhnamed Appellant (Twelfthnamed Plaintiff)

- and –

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING &

ENERGY UNION  Firstnamed Respondent (Firstnamed Defendant)

JANE CALVERT  Secondnamed Respondent (Secondnamed Defendant)

CHRISTOPHER CLIFFORD WHEELER        Thirdnamed Respondent (Thirdnamed Defendant)

GEORGE MOLLOY  Fourthnamed Respondent (Fourthnamed Defendant)

MICHAEL JOSEPH NOCERA  Fifthnamed Respondent (Fifthnamed Defendant)

BARRY JOHN DENT  Sixthnamed Respondent  (Seventhnamed Defendant)

DONALD GORDON PEARCE  Seventhnamed Respondent (Eighthnamed Defendant)

DAVID REECE SHEPPARD  Eighthnamed Respondent (Ninthnamed Defendant)

TREVOR FRANCIS WILSON  Ninthnamed Respondent (Tenthnamed Defendant)

(representing estate of Gary Leon Wilson)

WAYNE JOHN McGEE  Tenthnamed Respondent (Twelfthnamed Defendant)

BRIAN PATRICK WHEELER  Eleventhnamed Respondent (Thirteenthnamed Defendant)

CHARLIE PAUL NEMET  Twelfthnamed Respondent (Fourteenthnamed Defendant)

SHANE JOHN FLANNIGAN  Thirteenthnamed Respondent (Fifteenth Defendant)

WAYNE ANDREW BENSON  Fourteenthnamed Respondent (Sixteenth Defendant)

WARREN CJ

NETTLE JA
REDLICH JA:

Introduction and facts

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment given in the Common Law Division in a proceeding which arose out of an anti-logging demonstration and an opposing pro-logging picket in the Otway Ranges in the period between Monday 25 January…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McFadzean v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union 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
[2007] VSCA 289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McFadzean v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment, public nuisance, and particular damage, as well as exemplary and aggravated damages, following an incident during an anti-logging protest. The protest involved environmentalists being detained by logging contractors, which led to the plaintiff's claims. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's detention constituted false imprisonment, if the obstruction of the public highway by loggers constituted public nuisance and particular damage, and if the respondents were adequately punished by the compensatory costs ordered.

The court examined the elements of false imprisonment, focusing on whether the perceived total restraint by the joint tortfeasors made any forms of egress available unreasonable. It concluded that the respondents were not liable for false imprisonment because the egress available to the plaintiff was not unreasonable. Regarding public nuisance and particular damage, the court found that the degree of nuisance did not go beyond general inconvenience and dismissed the claims. The court also considered whether the compensatory costs adequately punished the respondents and found no error in the exercise of discretion.

The court addressed the issue of exemplary and aggravated damages, concluding that the respondents had been adequately punished by the order for payment of compensatory costs. Additionally, the court exercised its discretion to order the proportions of costs to reflect the mixed success and failure of the plaintiff's claims. It issued a single order to facilitate taxation and considered the fair and just exercise of discretion in all circumstances.

The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment, public nuisance, and particular damage, and affirmed the adequacy of the compensatory costs ordered as punishment. It also confirmed the proportionality of the costs awarded, reflecting the mixed outcomes of the litigation.

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.