Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v BHP Steel(AIS) Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 62 (9 April 2003)

Last Updated: 6 May 2003

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd

[2003] FCAFC 62

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -fine imposed by Full Court for contempt of court -no order made specifying the date to pay fine -Full Court order specifying date for payment of

fine.

Federal Court Rules 0 35 r 7 (3), 0 35 r 5.

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION v BHP STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD (ACN 000 019 625)

Q100 OF 2002

MOORE, TAMBERLIN AND GOLDBERG JJ

SYDNEY

9 APRIL 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q100 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION APPELLANT
AND:	BHP STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD (ACN 000 019 625) RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	MOORE, TAMBERLIN & GOLDBERG JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	9 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The fine imposed by order 2 made on 21 February 2003 be paid within 28 days from the date of this order.

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	Q100 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION APPELLANT
AND:	BHP STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD (ACN 000 019 625) RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	MOORE, TAMBERLIN & GOLDBERG JJ
DATE:	9 APRIL 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 We gave judgment in this appeal on 21 February 2003. An order was made requiring the payment of a fine. For reasons which appear in a letter set out below, it has been necessary to consider whether a further order should be made. On 28 March 2003, a letter was sent to the parties by the Court in the following terms:

Re: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) PtyLtd [Q100/02]

I have been asked to write this letter on behalf of the Full Court.

The Full Court made an order on 21 February 2003 requiring payment of a fine of 50,000 dollars. Order 35 rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules requires that any such order specify the time within which the person liable to pay the fine is required to pay it. No such order was made by the Full Court. It has come to the attention of the Full Court that the fine remains unpaid. The Court has power under 0 35 r 7 (3) to correct an error arising from an accidental slip or omission.

The Full Court proposes to order that the fine of 50,000 dollars be paid within 28 days from the date of that order. Any party opposing such an order being made should file and serve written submissions by 2pm Friday, 4 April 2003.

Kind Regards,

Fleur Ramsay

Acting Associate to Justice Moore

2 By letter dated 28 March 2003 the solicitors for the respondent indicated their client did not oppose an order being made in the terms suggested in the letter. By letter dated 2 April 2003 the solicitors for the appellant indicated their client did not wish to make any submissions in response to the letter from the Court of 28 March 2003. We infer that the appellant does not oppose such an order being made.

3 In our opinion, it is appropriate that an order be made which would put beyond doubt when the fine has to be paid. Indeed this reflects the apparent purpose of 035 r 5. Accordingly, we will make an order generally in the terms referred to in the last paragraph of the letter set out above.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore, Tamberlin & Goldberg.

Associate:

Dated: 9 April 2003

Counsel for the Applicant:	R Kenzie QC with C Howell
Solicitor for the Applicant:	R L Whybum & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:	W Sofronoff QC with M A Hoch
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	8 November 2002
Date of Judgment:	9 April 2003