IN THE FELERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA BISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. WA G74 of 1986 we ee BETWEENS Applicant and THE SHOP, DISTRIBUTIVE & ALLIED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA First Respondent and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION Second Respondent and AUSTRALIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION Third Respondent and FEDERATED CLERKS UNION OF AUSTRALIA ; Fourth Respondent and CLIVE BROWN Fifth Respondent and JOE BULLOCK Sixth Respondent mr os CORAM: MUIRHEAD J. 23 July 1986 REASONS FOR DECISION (EX TEMPORE) This application for interlocutory injunction is brought pursuant to the provisions of s.45D of the Trade Practices Act, the powers to make restraining orders of the nature sought being contained in s.80. One prefers not to make restraining orders on an ex parte basis, but here there are considerations which I find compelling: (1) The nature of the conduct sworn to in the affidavits. {2) The continuing and, I accept, substantial loss the conduct is causing. (3) The fact that the conduct is sworn to include physical obstruction of legitimate access to and from the applicant's business premises. (4) The fact that some such conduct sworn to is, if true, clearly illegal and offensive by any standard. (5) The capacity of this court to deal with the matter early next week is limited. at ey, aren emer FT . ofS (6) Damage or loss is unlikely to result to the respondents or, in the case of the association, to its members. I have had the oportunity of considering the many affidavits filed and they reveal a state of affairs, which if found ultimately to be substantiated, goes far beyond the ambit of what one may term as 'lawful industrial picketing' - (picketing which carries with it no actual physical obstruction, violence or threat). The material elements proof of which is required under sub-s.45D l(a) (referred to by Bowen C.J. in Tillemanns Butcheries v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union and Others 27 ALR 367 at 370) appear, prima facie, to be established. The first principle relating to the granting of interlocutory injunctions as appears in the Australian Coarse Grain Pool Pty Ltd v. Barley Marketing Board of Queensland 46 ALR 398, namely that there is a serious question to be tried, is here apparent. The balance of convenience test when weighed falls heavily in favour of interlocutory relief, albeit after ex parte consideration. I make an interim injunction substantially in the terms adopted by Morling Jd. in the Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v. Piaieetetataast pecicane ten ieee Soe yale an epee ge ey Te ae pros Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and Others 61 ALR 280 at 289. I direct that an interlocutory injunction be granted against all respondents in terms of the minutes signed by me and dated this day. I certify that this and the three preceding Pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Decision (Ex Tempore) herein of his Honour Mr Justice Muirhead. Associate Dated: 23 July 1986 caro