Vict v MUA and CFMEU; Vict v Hilakari

The case before the court involved two defendants, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), as well as a third defendant, Mr. Hilakari, who was not an official of either union. The plaintiff, seeking relief from alleged unlawful activities, pursued an injunction against the defendants, focusing particularly on Mr. Hilakari's involvement in picketing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to resolve were whether Mr. Hilakari shared the same interests as the union members engaging in picketing activities, and if so, whether he was appropriately included in a Representative Order. This involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, specifically rules 18.03 and 18.04, which pertain to the making of such orders. The court had to determine if Mr. Hilakari's actions could be considered as those of the unions, warranting his inclusion in the order.

The court found that Mr. Hilakari was indeed acting in concert with the unions and their members, and thus shared their interests. Consequently, he was subject to the same orders as the unions. The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented, which demonstrated that Mr. Hilakari's actions were aligned with the unions' objectives and were carried out as part of the broader industrial action. This alignment was sufficient to satisfy the criteria for a Representative Order under the rules.

The final orders included an injunction against the defendants, and Mr. Hilakari was specifically enjoined from participating in any activities that constituted picketing or otherwise interfered with the plaintiff's operations. The court's decision underscored the importance of aligning individual actions with the interests of the collective entities when determining the scope of such orders.