Re MEAA; ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition by Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd against the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA). The dispute concerned the MEAA's alleged contravention of section 45D of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) by engaging in conduct that had the purpose or effect of causing substantial loss or damage to Hoyts. Hoyts sought to restrain the MEAA from continuing this conduct.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the MEAA's actions constituted conduct that was "unreasonable" for the purposes of section 45D(2)(a)(ii) of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the MEAA's conduct, which involved a campaign of industrial action against Hoyts, was of such a nature that it could be characterised as unreasonable in the context of the statutory prohibition.

The Court reasoned that the concept of "unreasonable" in section 45D(2)(a)(ii) was not to be interpreted as a general standard of reasonableness in tort law or contract law. Instead, it was to be understood in the context of the specific provisions of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* and the purpose of preventing secondary boycotts. The court found that the MEAA's conduct, while potentially disruptive, did not meet the threshold of unreasonableness required by the section. The court noted that the purpose of the industrial action was to achieve a collective bargaining outcome, which was a legitimate objective for a trade union. The court therefore held that the MEAA's conduct was not unreasonable in the statutory sense.

The High Court dismissed Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd's application for a writ of prohibition.