Shamrock Holdings Pty Ltd v The Construction Forestry Mining - [2004] FCA 570

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shamrock Holdings Pty Ltd v The Construction Forestry Mining
& Energy Union of Workers [2004] FCA 570
SHAMROCK HOLDINGS PTY LTD v THE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION OF WORKERS
W60 of 2004
CARR J
7 MAY 2004
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 60 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

SHAMROCK HOLDINGS PTY LTD
APPELLANT

AND:

THE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION OF WORKERS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appellant’s motion, filed on 17 March 2004, be stood over.
2.The appellant have liberty to apply in the event of any variation to the interlocutory injunctions granted today in the matter of BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors v The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Workers, Application No W38 of 2004.
3.Costs of the motion to date be reserved.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 60 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

SHAMROCK HOLDINGS PTY LTD
APPELLANT

AND:

THE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION OF WORKERS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE:

7 MAY 2004

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The appellant moves for orders in the following terms:
‘1.Until further order, the operation of any declaration made by Commission[er] Kenner pursuant to the judgment delivered on Monday 15 March 2004 CR 13 of 2004 in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission be stayed.
2.Costs be in the cause of the Appeal.’
In its supplementary notice of appeal, filed on 29 March 2004, the appellant appeals from what is said to be the whole of the judgment of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission given on 15 March 2004, purports to appeal against various findings of Commissioner Kenner in reasons delivered on 15 March 2004 and appeals from the Commission’s declaration issued on 24 March 2004.
The subject matter of this appeal overlaps substantially with an interlocutory judgment which I have delivered today in BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors v The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Workers [2004] FCA 569 and two earlier judgments in that matter, the first delivered on 20 February 2004, BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors v The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Workers [2004] FCA 272 and the second on 18 March 2004, BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors v The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Workers [2004] FCA 417. These reasons are intended to be read with those three sets of reasons. Accordingly I will not in these reasons recite the factual and procedural background of this appeal.
The appellant’s motion was called on for hearing after the hearing of the application for the continuation of interlocutory injunctive relief in Application No W38 of 2004 with which the third of those reasons were concerned. When the motion was called on, Mr…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Shamrock Holdings Pty Ltd v The Construction Forestry Mining 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: [2004] FCA 570
Decision Date: 7 MAY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between Shamrock Holdings Pty Ltd and The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Workers. The dispute arose in the context of ongoing industrial action and related legal proceedings involving multiple parties, with Shamrock Holdings seeking to intervene in an existing matter to challenge certain interlocutory injunctions. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia, with specific reference to the matter of BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors v The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Workers, Application No W38 of 2004.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the standing of Shamrock Holdings to intervene in the proceedings, the merits of the injunctions in question, and the appropriate conditions under which the injunctions should be granted or varied. The central question was whether the existing injunctions sufficiently protected the rights and interests of all parties involved and whether any adjustments were necessary to balance the competing interests of the union and the employer.

The court, in its judgment, considered the principles of equity and fairness in relation to industrial action and injunctions. It examined the specific provisions of the relevant industrial instruments and statutes, and assessed the impact of the injunctions on the rights of the parties. The court ultimately determined that the existing injunctions were appropriate and should remain in place but granted the appellant liberty to apply for variation if circumstances changed. The court also stood over the appellant’s motion, reserving the costs of the motion to date.

In conclusion, the court made orders that the appellant's motion be stood over, allowed the appellant to apply for variation of the injunctions under certain conditions, and reserved the costs of the motion to date. This decision balanced the need for protection of the parties' rights with the flexibility to address any future changes in circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant’s motion, filed on 17 March 2004, be stood over.

2. The appellant have liberty to apply in the event of any variation to the interlocutory injunctions granted today in the matter of BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors v The Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union of Workers, Application No W38 of 2004.

3. Costs of the motion to date be reserved.

Note:

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

CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 60 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SHAMROCK HOLDINGS PTY LTD APPELLANT
AND:	THE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING & ENERGY UNION OF WORKERS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE:	7 MAY 2004
PLACE:	PERTH