Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 17 August 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] FCAFC 132

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] FCAFC 132

TRADE PRACTICES — restrictive trade practices — appeal against finding that union was liable as an accessory under s 76(1) of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to company’s contraventions of ss 45E and 45EA — whether primary judge erred in finding contract, arrangement or understanding between company and union contravened s 45E — whether primary judge erred in drawing certain inferences — whether primary judge erred in finding alternative case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission made out — whether primary judge erred in finding union had knowledge of all elements required by s 45E(3)

TRADE PRACTICES — restrictive trade practices — proper construction of s 45E(3) of Trade Practices Act — whether ‘purpose’ for the inclusion of a provision is objective or subjective — whether ‘purpose’ to be common intention of parties — whether ‘purpose’ must be the only purpose or an operative purpose — whether union can be liable as an accessory to a corporation’s contravention of s 45E(3) — whether ‘second person’ must be a particular identified person — whether sufficient to identify a class of persons

TRADE PRACTICES — appeal against pecuniary penalty imposed on union for accessorial liability — whether pecuniary penalty excessive — standard of proof for pecuniary penalties under s 76

WORDS AND PHRASES — ‘purpose’

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 15AA, 15AB(1), 15AB(2)(f)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 140, 140(2)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 24(1), 27, 28, 28(1)(b), 28(1)(f),

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 4F, 4F(1), 4F(2), 45E, 45E(3) 45EA, 76, 76(1), 76(2), 88(7A)

Adler v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 179 FLR 1 discussed

Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87discussed

ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460discussed

Atcheson v Everitt (1776) 1 Cowp 382 [98 ER 1142] discussed

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IPM Operation and Management Loy Yang Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 162 affirmed

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IPM Operation and Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007]FCA 11 affirmed

Bailey v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1977) 136 CLR 214discussed

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 considered

Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (1984) 58 ALR 364 discussed

Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 1) (1985) 5 FCR 464discussed

Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 discussed

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Limited (2003) 216 CLR 161discussed

Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 discussed

Cooper v Slade (1858) 6 HLC 746 at 747 [10 ER 1488]discussed

Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435 discussed

Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 discussed

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Investments Pty Limited (1978) 140 CLR 434discussed

Gibbins v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1986) 12 FCR 450 discussed

Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121 discussed

Jones v Dunkel (1958) 101 CLR 298 considered

Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 21 CLR 181discussed

Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Limited (2004) 216 CLR 388 discussed

Murray v Murray (1960) 33 ALJR 521 discussed

Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449 discussed

News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club (2003) 215 CLR 563discussed

R v Hillier (2007) 233 ALR 634 discussed

Reg v Sharmpal Singh [1962] AC 188 discussed

Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517 discussed

Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2004) 220 CLR 129discussed

Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 186 ALR 289 discussed

Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141 considered

The King and The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387 discussed

Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331 discussed

Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1discussed

United States v Regan 232 US 37 (1914) discussed

Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491discussed

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA v AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

VID 68 OF 2007

WEINBERG, BENNETT AND RARES JJ

17 August 2007

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 68 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Respondent

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, BENNETT AND RARES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	17 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 68 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Respondent

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, BENNETT AND RARES JJ
DATE:	17 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ISSUES IN THE APPEAL...................................................................................................... [10]

THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF s 45E........................................................................... [11]

THE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER s 76 OF THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974[19]

STANDARD OF PROOF....................................................................................................... [29]

THE FACTS........................................................................................................................... [40]

THE EVENTS OF 9 AUGUST 2001...................................................................................... [44]

THE EVENTS OF 10 AUGUST 2001.................................................................................... [52]

THE EVENTS OF 12 AUGUST 2001.................................................................................... [57]

THE 13 AUGUST MEETING WITH MR NABULSI............................................................. [59]

THE 13 AUGUST LETTER FROM MR SUTHERLAND TO MR MIGHELL....................... [63]

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 15 AUGUST 2001..................... [90]

THE 16 AUGUST EDISON TEAM LEADERS’ MEETING................................................ [114]

THE PREPARATION OF HEADS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDISON AND THE CEPU[115]

THE FINALISATION OF THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT ON 23 AUGUST 2001.......... [121]

THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT.......................................................................................... [125]

LATER EVENTS.................................................................................................................. [129]

THE ROLE OF THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT................................................................. [133]

THE ACCC’s ALTERNATIVE CASE.................................................................................. [168]

THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF s 45e(3)................................................................... [175]

(A)............. Is the purpose for including the provision subjective or objective?..............[175]

(B)......... Can the CEPU be liable under s 45E or s 76?...............................................[183]

(C).......... Is the purpose the only or an operative purpose?..........................................[192]

(D)............ Must the ‘second person’ be identified as a particular person?....................[199]

WAS THE CEPU LIABLE?.................................................................................................. [211]

WAS THERE ANY ERROR IN THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY?......................... [225]

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... [236]

WEINBERG, BENNETT AND RARES JJ

1 In August 2001 Edison Mission Operation and Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Limited and its related companies were involved in developing and constructing a new gas fired electricity generation plant, known as a peaker plant, in the Latrobe Valley for the State Government of Victoria. The Edison group already operated the existing Loy Yang B power station in the Latrobe Valley. A related company of Edison, Valley Power Pty Limited, had agreed to acquire land from the State on which the new plant was to be built. The Edison group’s agreements with the State required the new plant to be completed and operating by early 2002, failing which Valley Power would lose its interest in the land and the Edison group’s overall investment in the peaker plant would also be at risk.

2 By early August 2001 a number of key unions, including the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (‘the CEPU’), had not finalised a site agreement with Simon Engineering Pty Ltd, Edison’s head contractor for the construction of the plant. On 9 August 2001 a meeting of those involved was called by Industrial Relations Victoria. There, Dean Mighell, the State Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (‘the ETU’), a division of the CEPU, put its demands as...