Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
CONTEMPT OF COURT - alleged disobedience of interlocutory orders - Trade Practices Act - s.45D(1) - purpose of conduct - whether purpose to cause substantial loss or damage - proof of purpose - onus of proof - breaches of interlocutory orders not established
Trade Practices Act 1974, s.45D(1)
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS (NSW) PTY. LIMITED Vv AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES AND BUILDERS' LABOURERS' FEDERATION; STEVE BLACK;
WILLIAM ROSS WILLIAM ROSS HEFFERNAN and DOUGLAS SIDDONS
No. G950 of 1988
Morling J. 16 June 1988 Sydney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
No. G 950 of 1988
BETWEEN: CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS (NSW) PTY. LIMITED Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES AND BUILDERS' LABOURERS' FEDERATION First Respondent AND: STEVE BLACK Second Respondent AND: WILLIAM ROSS HEFFERNAN Third Respondent AND: DOUGLAS SIDDONS
MINUTE OF ORDER
JUDGE MAKING ORDER
DATE OF ORDER
oo
WHERE MADE Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The application that the
Morling J.
16 June 1988
Fourth Respondent
second, third and
fourth respondents be adjudged to be guilty of contempt of Court is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the third respondent's
costs.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 950 of 1988 )
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS (NSW) PTY. LIMITED Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYEES AND BUILDERS' LABOURERS' FEDERATION First Respondent
AND: STEVE BLACK Second Respondent AND: WILLIAM ROSS HEFFERNAN Third Respondent AND: DOUGLAS SIDDONS Fourth Respondent MORLING J. 16 June 1988
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These are proceedings in which the applicant seeks orders that the respondents be adjudged to be guilty of contempt of Court in respect of their alleged breaches of orders made by Foster J on 13 May 1988. On that day the learned judge made interlocutory orders under s.45D(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 against each of the respondents. The
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