PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether advertisements by respondent union criticising staff/patient ratios and quality of care by applicant’s hospitals should be restrained by interlocutory injunction pending final determination of the proceedings – where applicant alleged advertisements were false or misleading contrary to the Australian Consumer Law – whether serious question to be tried -whether terms of proposed injunction were too wide and uncertain – where respondent alleged injunctions would stifle debate on important topic of public health contrary to freedom of speech – where applicant contended false or misleading representations posed risk of deterring public from obtaining necessary treatment from its hospitals – whether requirement on respondent to provide advance notice of intention to resume advertising campaign would better reflect the balance of convenience – interlocutory application allowed in part
CONSUMER LAW – whether it is arguable that representations made by respondent union at a time when negotiating a proposed enterprise agreement were made “in trade or commerce” for the purposes of the Australian Consumer Law
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0519
For more information, see the original judgement.
