Morris McMahon & Co Pty Ltd v AFMEPKIU [2003] NSWSC 452

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Morris McMahon & Co Pty Ltd v AFMEPKIU [2003] NSWSC 452 HEARING DATE(S) : 21 May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 May 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J DECISION : Adjustments made to disputed terms of injunction to restrain picketing otherwise made by consent.

CATCHWORDS : EQUITY [338] - Equitable remedies - Injunctions - Interlocutory injunctions - Balance of convenience - Injunction to restrain picketing - Form of restraints. CASES CITED : Barloworld Coatings (Aust) Pty Limited v Australian Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers Union (2001) 108 IR 107 GTS Freight Management Pty Limited v Transport Workers Union (1990) 33 IR 26 PARTIES : Morris McMahon & Co Pty Limited (P) Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union (D) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2829/03 COUNSEL : B A J Coles QC and N J Beaumont (P) S Crawshaw SC (D) SOLICITORS : Cutler Hughes & Harris (P) Turner Freeman (D)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2003

2829/03 MORRIS McMAHON & CO PTY LIMITED v AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING & KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings concern an application by a company to restrain picketing of its premises by a trade union and persons associated with the union. The ambit of what I need to decide is limited because the parties have sensibly agreed on an interlocutory regime pending the final determination of these proceedings. It is only in a number of respects as to the precise ambit of the injunctions that I have been asked by the parties to decide, brevi manu as it were, between the versions contended for by the opposing parties. It is really in three areas that I am called upon to make those decisions. 2 The opening words in relation to the proposed injunctive relief are that the defendant union should be restrained from doing certain acts. The plaintiff's contention is that that restraint should be expressed to be "by itself, its officers, delegates, members, servants and agents". The defendant is prepared to undergo an injunction restraining it "by itself, its servants and agents", but opposes the inclusion of the other words. Somewhat related to the form in which those opening words of the injunctive relief are cast is the question as to whether or not there should be a final restraint at the end of the injunctive relief restraining the defendant from "procuring or inducing any person or persons to do or attempt to do any of the things restrained". 3 The second area relates to a head of injunction which the plaintiff claims should be as follows: "Yelling loud insults, threats including from time to time threats of physical violence, and abuse and throwing mud, eggs and other objects and materials, at, and attaching offensive stickers or labels to the Vehicles of, Persons entering or exiting the Premises or seeking to do so."