- i IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G51 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY. LIMITED and CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS (N.S.W.) PTY. LIMITED Applicants AND: THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA Respondent No. G54 of 1987 BETWEEN SABEMO_ PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA Respondent No. G55 of 1987 BETWEEN : LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA Respondent No. G57 of 1987 BETWEEN : CIVIL & CIVIC PLY LIMITED Applicant AND: THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ORS Respondents COURT: DATE: PLACE: BETWEEN ; BETWEEN : BETWEEN : BETWEEN: No. G58 of 1987 WHITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Applicant THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR Respondents No. G59 of 1987 JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Applicant THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR Respondents No. G60 of 1987 BARCLAY BROS PTY LIMITED Applicant THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR Respondents No. G64 of 1987 JOHN HOLLAND CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LIMITED Applicant THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES " UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR Respondents Bowen, C.J., Lockhart, Sheppard JJ. 9th April, Sydney. 3. EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT BOWEN C.J. There are before us motions for leave to appeal from and for a stay of certain orders made by Wilcox J. on 6 April, 1987 in matters Nos. G51 of 1987, G54 of 1987, G55 of 1987, G57 of / 1987, G58 of 1987, G59 of 1987, G60 of 1987 and G64 of 1987. The orders made by his Honour on 6 April, which were orders based on a motion for contempt in which he held the respondents to the motion guilty of contempt and granted certain injunctions against them, deal in the eight cases with fourteen 'building sites on which bans preventing work from being carried on had been in force for some time. The principal order from which leave to appeal is sought is an order finding The Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union of Australia guilty of contempt of court in failing to lift bans in relation to those sites as required by the orders made by his Honour on 6 April 1987. In the view of the Court it is not necessary to seek leave to appeal from the orders of Wilcox J holding the organization guilty of contempt and, therefore, we make no order in that regard. However, I would add on behalf of the Court that had we taken the view that leave is necessary, we would have been disposed to grant leave, amended in the form that Mr Kenzie 4. mentioned to include an application for leave to appeal also against the order for costs. We make that comment, however, without expressing any view as to the prospects of success in the appeal. In regard to the question of staying the order which is current and which in the case of each site relates to a penaity ef $20,000 ordered to be paid to the Registrar of this Court by tomorrow, different considerations apply. The question whether a stay of an oorder made by a trial judge will be granted is a matter which rests in the discretion of the Court. It is necessary for anyone who applies for a stay to demonstrate that it is a case for a stay. The presumption is that the decision of the trial judge, unless and until it is otherwise decided by a superior court, is correct. It is sometimes put on the basis that "special" or "exceptional" circumstances must be shown before a stay will he granted or, as it was put in Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation (1985) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 685, that it is an "appropriate" case, although their Honours of the Court of Appeal did not lay down what were the limits of the appropriate cases. The decisions show that where the subject matter of the appeal will disappear unless a stay is granted there is an obvious case to hold the position pending the hearing of the appeal; or, if the positions of the parties are going to alter 5. dramatically in some fashion, then there may be a case made out for a stay of the operation of the order pending the decision on the appeal so that the right of appeal is not rendered nugatory. But the cases before us do not fall into any of those categories; the position of the organization in regard to its appeal will not be defeated if a stay be not granted. In these circumstances, it appears to us that a case has not been made out for the discretion of the Court to be exercised in favour of granting a stay of the orders for the payment of money to the Registrar which were made by Wilcox J. So far as the costs of the motion heard today are concerned, it is considered that the costs should be reserved to be decided by the Court that hears the appeal. I certify that this and the va preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Chief Judge, Sir Nigel Bowen. (Vole zo Associate pateas J Ararf 1987