Helkit Pty Ltd v The Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia [1987] FCA 494

r

JUDGMENT No. AAAS onsen

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) - - ) : ; NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) _ ° Nos G 246 of 1987 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) - Between: HELKIT PTY.LIMITED Applicant and: THE BUILDING WORKERS

CORAM:

PLACE:

DATE:

I make

INDUSTRIAL UNION OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

THE BUILDING WORKERS

INDUSTRIAL UNION OF AUSTRALIA A.C.T. BRANCH

Second Respondent

SAM SCOTT

Third Respondent

Einfeld J. Sydney

11 September 1987

MINUTE OF ORDER

no order as to costs in these proceedings.

" RECENVED

od

14 SEP 1987

ERAL GOURT OF FED AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

eer ee een

a

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

'NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY. ) No. G 246 of 1987 ~ - )

GENERAL DIVISION )

Between: HELKIT PTY.LIMITED

Applicant -

and: THE BUILDING WORKERS INDUSTRIAL UNION OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

THE BUILDING WORKERS

INDUSTRIAL UNION OF AUSTRALIA A.C.T. BRANCH

Second Respondent

SAM SCOTT

Third Respondent

CORAM: Einfeld J.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 11 September 1987

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The matter in issue in this case was an application under section 45D (1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") for orders by way of

injunctions that the respondents be restrained from

(a) "giving effect to or enforcing any ban on the provision by the applicant .... of goods and services" in relation to

bricklaying work to be performed in the Australian Capital

Territory in May 1987; and

— ae

atts

wae

"

Se eeeel an a eeennenenn ne

"oO

essa Gece oo

(b) aiding and abetting this conduct or being otherwise relevantly

involved in thé appropriate statutory sense. : ~

The affidavit filed with the application suggests that- the events which gave rise to it all occurred on 26, 27 and 28 May-1987. The dispute was also crystallised in a letter to the applicant of 29 May 1987 written by two building contractors and in a letter from the applicant's solicitor to the second respondent of 4 June 1987. On 5 June, in the light of these developments, the applicant corporation applied to Justice Burchett for leave to serve short notice of the application. This was granted and the return date given was 2.15 pm on 10 June. On that day the matter came before me and a hearing date was fixed for 22 July upon the giving of undertakings by all parties which were contained in short minutes of orders signed by their counsel. Although the undertakings were expressed in terms of being both inter partes as well as to the Court, I then informed counsel that in my view it was inappropriate that these undertakings should be given to the Court at all. I said then that it did not seem to me that a breach of such consent undertakings would be an appropriate basis for contempt proceedings if they should happen to be broken. However, in view of the delicacy of the negotiations then under way between the parties, I did