Federal Court of Australia
—D Vind 'es ™ oNuy HK ™
JUDGMENT No. ZL neal Ol.
ATCEWORDS
Trade Practices - Secormary boycott - conduct of participant memkers of "organization cf employees" deemed conduct of organization - whether "organization of employees" registered under Industrial Arbitration Act (i1.S.W.) 1940 a "body corporate" within the meaning of s.45D(6) of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonvealth) - Interscgatories directed to participant members —- ambit of raght to refuse to answer interrogatories on the ground of incrimination or cf exposing such memsexrs to risk of percuniary
penalty - oppressive interrogatories.
Trade Practices Pet 1974, sub-ss.45D(1),(5), (6)(>), 6(c)(21) to (v),
s.76, s.77, 8.73, s.80 and s.82. Federal Court Rules 0.16 ©.i, 2 an
LIMITED -v- Hk TRANSPORT WORKERS UY TON OF AUSTRALIA 27 WORKERS UNI OF AUSTRALIA NRW SOUTH WALTS BRANCH NCLESMN and Dav=D ARTEUR_MCNALLY
23 January 1931
we
"in CREMRAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GrunPaL DIVTSION
) ) ) No G 61 of 1980 ) No G 70 of 1980 ) )
RPV SCUTE WSLoS DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF TH aAcT 1974
ty
TRADE PRECTICFS
RETWEEN: NAVAIR PTY LINITED Applicant
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIS TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH WALES BRANCE
Respondents
ORDOIR
JUDGr '"-KING ORDER: EVATT J. DATI OF ORDIR: 235 JANUARY 1231 iPRE MaDO: SYDNEY
THE COURT GCRDERS THAT: The Notice of Motion herein dated 3 December 19380 be dismissed with costs.
7 7 UP PAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CUM? ASL DIVISTON No G 61 of 1980 No G 70 of 1980
'Ch, CUT ALES DISTRICT
JN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
BETWEEN
NAVAIR PTY LIMITED Applicant
AND
THE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
OF AUSTRALIA
THE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH VALES
BRANCH
JOHN BARRY MCLEAN
DAVID ARTHUR MUCNALLY Respondents
el ocnnary 1961 EVATT J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMINT
Ly application friled 4 August 1980 and numbered G61 af .lt0 '"avair Pty. Limited a company incorporated under the Cotrenies f#et (New South Wales) 196] sought certain orders rurseant to s.€0 of the Trade Pratices Act 1974 (the Act), reeiecgre ss an interim Injunction, against Five respondents,
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate