Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [1999] QSC 283

~7CSg. State R(~porting 2;(19/~5 {'I \t~ I Bureau TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QU~ENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION WILLIAMS J CAPRICORN COAL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 010 037 564 and SHELL COAL (GERMAN CREEK) PTY LTD ACN 081 022 415 and CALLIDE COALFIELDS PTY LTD ACN 009 666 200 and SHELL COAL (CALLIDE) PTY LTD ACN 081 022 228 and MORANBAH NORTH COAL (MANAGEMENT) PTY LTD ACN 069 603 587 and MORANBAH NORTH COAL PTY LTD ACN 007 083 249 and MORANBAH NORTH COAL (NO 2) PTY LTD ACN 009 871 425 and REVISED COPfES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Date Jv / First Applicant Second Applicant Third Applicant Fourth Applicant Fifth Applicant Sixth Applicant Seventh Applicant It FIll,,!", The L:I\Y Courts, Cl'orge Stn:cl, Brishalle, Q. -tllllll Tc)cpholl\:: (07) J2A7 -t.1(j1l Fax: (1l7) .1247 5532 -- 1 of 4 -- 130899 T3/MT1 M/T 4245/99 (Williams J) BHP COAL PTY LTD ACN 010 595 721 and MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 and NEWLANDS COAL PTY LTD ACN 010 082 578 and OAKY CREEK COAL PTY LTD ACN 010 202 936 and COLLINSVILLE COAL PTY LTD ACN 009 948 172 and THIESS CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ACN 010 221 486 and CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION BRISBANE .. DATE 13/08/99 JUDGMENT Eighth Applicant Ninth Applicant Tenth Applicant Eleventh Applicant Twelfth Applicant Thirteenth Applicant Respondent 10 ')o(~' - \ I 30 40 50 6() -- 2 of 4 -- - -_/ 130899 T3/MT1 M/T 4245/99 !Williams J) HIS HONOUR: Last night I d~:livered reasons for, at that stage, granting a limited form of injunction to the applicants. That order was made in the absence of the respondent union but made after I indicated I was satisfied on the evidence that the union was avoiding service of any Court documents. Additional evidence has been placed before me today which establishes a number of facts: 1. Firstly, that the Brisbane office appears to be 10 unmanned so that perso~al service cannot be effected 20 there. 2. Secondly, that a copy of the order I made last night was faxed to the Brisbane office and the fax machine indicated that it had been received. 3. Thirdly, that the Sydney office appears to be unmanned and faxes cannot be sent. 4. Fourthly, that the ABC has in news bulletins informed the public generally of the granting of an injunction though not apparently specifying in any details the terms thereof. I am satisfied on the evidence placed before me that the offices of the union are closed with a view to avoiding service of documents emanating from the Court relating to the industrial dispute. Evidence has also now been placed before me as to the response by employees of the applicant companies to the injunction granted last night. 3 JUDGMENT 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 4 -- -------- -- --- 130899 T3/MT1 M/T 4245/99 (Williams J) It appears that a number have returned to work but a number are not prepared to return to work until a direction is given by the union to that E.ffect. For the reasons which I elaborated last night I am of the 10 view that this is an appropriate case in which to grant an injunction preventing the union from inducing breach of contract of employment between the employees and the applicant companies. In the circumstances it seems to me that it is now appropriate to grant the supplementary injunction which is CJ sought and there will be an order as per the draft that I have initialled. 30 c 40 c so 60 4 JUDGMENT -- 4 of 4 --