Legal Research
Cases
Mudginberry Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

Mudginberry Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

Case [1985] FCA 237 12 June 1985

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices (Restrictive) - secondary boycott - interim injunction - defence under s.45D(31(b).

MUDGINBEHRI STATION FTY. LIMITED v. THE AUSTRUASIAN MEAT

INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION	& ORS.
No. G123 of 1985
Beaumont , J . 12 June 1985 Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA )

)

NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY	1	No. G123 of 1985
1
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN :	MUDGINBERRI	STATION	PTY.	LIMITED
Applicant

THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY

EMPLOYEES UNION

First Respondent

,m:	O'TOOLE	JACK
Second Respondent

TREVOR

SU PLICE

Third Respondent

'm:

DICK ANNW.

Fourth Respondent

PAT ROUGHAN

Fifth Respondent

MEAT INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION

Slxth Respondent

GORDON McCOLL

Seventh Respondent

AND

ALEX THOMPSON

Eighth Respondent

MINUTES OF' ORDER

Judge making order: Beaumont, J.

Date order made:

12 June 1985.

Nhere made:

Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

I note

hat

the appllcant

glves

the

usual

undertaking as to damages.

7	Order	that	until	the	final	determination	of	this
U .

proceeding or

further order. whichever should first occur.

the first, second, third, fourth and

fifth respondents and

each of them be restrained by themselves. their servants and

agents from imposing, maintaining, giving effect to or

enforcing any ban on the provision of

goods or services to

the applicant at the Mudginberri Abattoirs

("the Abattoirs")

Or from setting Up or maintaining any picket line at or in

the vicinity of the Abattoirs where any such ban or picket

line has the purpose and would have or be likely to have the

effect of preventing

hlndering the ordinary day-to-day

activities

and

operations

the

Abattoirs'

business

Including:

(a)	the carrying out of works of maintenance and repair

at the Abattolrs:

(b) the	dellvery of any	livestock	for	slaughter	and
processrng;

( C )

the access to and egress

from the Abattoirs of any

person o r persons

providing

goods

services

to the

Abattoirs or otherwise involved. or engaged

In its ordinary

day-to-day actlrritles In the conduct of its

busmess as an

export meat processing works and an abattolrs licensed

3 .

process and export meat from Australia:

(d)

the egress from the Abattoirs of any product of the

Abattoirs:

(e)

the sale of any processed products

by-products

of the Abattoirs.

3 .

Reserve liberty to any

the respondents enjoined

by order ?. to apply on such notice	as	a judge shall allow to
discharge or vary that order.

4 .

Order that the final hearing

the proceeding be

expedited.

Order

that, as against

the

respondents

enjoined

order 2, the

applicant's

costs

this

interlocutory

applicatlon be applicant's costs

in the proceeding.

G .

Order that the application

for interlocutory

relief

as	agalnst the slxth, seventh and elghth respondents be

stood over generally with all costs in this connection

reserved and llberty reserved to the applicant to restore

this appllcation on such notice as a judge shall allow.

Pm:

Settlement and entry

of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mudginberry Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Emp...

Details

AGLC: Mudginberry Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union [1985] FCA 237
Case: [1985] FCA 237
Decision Date: 12 Jun 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mudginberry Station Pty Ltd sought an interim injunction against the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and others to prevent them from enforcing a ban on the provision of goods and services to the applicant's abattoir and to stop them from setting up or maintaining a picket line at or in the vicinity of the abattoir. The applicants claimed that the respondents were engaging in a secondary boycott in contravention of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The respondents argued that their actions were protected by section 45D(3)(b) of the Act as they were engaged in concert with employees of the applicant for the purpose of improving their remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions. Justice Beaumont found that a number of serious questions arose in relation to the defence, including whether the exclusion in section 45D(3)(b) applied, whether the defence was available where the boycott was imposed by union members who were not officers and not employed on the site, and whether the dominant purpose was substantially related to the employees' remuneration or conditions of employment. The court granted the injunction against the first to fifth respondents, reserving liberty to apply to discharge or vary the order, and stood over the application against the sixth to eighth respondents with liberty to restore. The court also ordered that the final hearing of the proceeding be expedited and that the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application be costs in the proceeding against the first to fifth respondents.

Orders