Treharne, Noel v George McEwin & Son Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 66

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - award breached - no penalty imposed - whether proceedings commenced "vexatiously or without reasonable cause"

- whether costs order should be made.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (C'th), ss.119 and 197A

Noel Treharne -v- George McEwin and Son Pty. Limited (S.A. No.1 of 1982)

Evatt J.

26 April 1983

Adelaide

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA } )

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) S.A. No.1 of 1982 )

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: NOEL TREHARNE Applicant

AND: GEORGE McEWIN & SON PTY. LIMITED Respondent

ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: EVATT J. DATE OF ORDER: 26 April 1983

WHERE MADE: Adelaide

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The respondent's application: for costs is refused.

DISTRICT REGISTRAR

Date Entered:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) S.A. No.1 of 1982 ) )

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

IN THE MATTER of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 s.119

BETWEEN: Noel Treharne Applicant

AND: GEORGE McEWIN & SON PTY. LIMITED

Respondent

26 April 1983 EVATT J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the applicant Noel Treharne, the Branch Secretary of the South Australian Branch of the Food Preservers' Union of Australia an organization registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act) sought the imposition of a penalty upon George McEwin & Son Pty. Limited (the respondent) under the provisions of s.119 of the Act for breaches of the provisions of the Food Preservers' Award 1973. There were nine alleged breaches

set out in the said application.

At the conclusion of the evidence called on behalf of the applicant the Court determined that the respondent had no case to answer in respect of seven of the breaches alleged but that a prima facie case had been made out in respect of two of the alleged breaches. The respondent called evidence in respect of those two alleged breaches. Having considered the matter the Court determined that the respondent had committed the two alleged breaches and at the request of the respondent adjourned the matter to give the respondent an opportunity to call evidence