Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
United Group Resources Pty Ltd v Calabro (No 7) [2012] FCA 432 Citation: United Group Resources Pty Ltd v Calabro (No 7) [2012] FCA 432
Parties: UNITED GROUP RESOURCES PTY LTD ABN 17 114 888 201, AGC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ABN 57 079 939 898, MODERN ACCESS SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 87 129 312 590, DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING POWER PTY LTD ABN 53 000 983 700, MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ABN 52 008 861 836, CBI CONSTRUCTORS PTY LTD ABN 90 000 612 411, DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 58 116 776 991, FREO GROUP LIMITED ABN 64 009 325 124, MAMMOET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 77 075 483 644, PCH GROUP LTD ABN 41 009 120 021, RCR CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE PTY LTD ABN 97 063 053 814, RCR POSITRON PTY LTD ABN 38 106 084 879 and JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD ABN 11 004 282 268 v BRAEDEN CALABRO AND OTHERS LISTED IN THE RESPONDENTS' SCHEDULE A AS AMENDED and THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER
File number: WAD 14 of 2010
Judge: MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment: 2 May 2012
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – proceedings instituted by 13 applicants against 1,336 respondents in relation to several days of unlawful industrial action – penalty agreement ultimately reached between applicants and represented respondents - factors the Court should take into account in assessing penalty and exercising its discretion whether to adopt a penalty agreement reached between the parties INDUSTRIAL LAW - sentencing - whether the represented and unrepresented respondents should be penalised equally – whether penalties should be suspended where an intervening industry regulator opposes suspension of penalties – whether an injunction to restrain from breaches for a seven year period should be imposed and if so, whether that should be considered in the context of penalties and suspension of them INDUSTRIAL LAW – penalty – civil double jeopardy – whether two separate pecuniary penalties should be paid by individual respondents for multiple contraventions of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) (BCII Act) and Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) in respect of the same conduct – held that s 38(1) of the BCII Act allows the Court to impose a single penalty taking into account overall conduct of each individual respondent COSTS – intervener – intervention of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC) – whether ABCC entitled to recover costs from respondents who admitted contraventions of the FW Act and BCII Act – held that in light of settlement reached between the applicants and respondents, costs order in favour of the ABCC would be punitive and undermine settlement reached, contrary to the objectives of industrial legislation and Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M and s 37N
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