What a nuisance: getting interim relief from unlawful picketing

Current site :    AU   |   EN
China Hong Kong SAR
United Kingdom
United States

Interim remedies are available to employers who suffer loss from unlawful picketing activities – Yakult Australia Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers & Ors [2018] VSC 151. 

Key impacts

  • Picketing activities will be unprotected industrial action where the activities constitute a nuisance to the employer's business or land.
  • Employers are able to apply for an interlocutory injunction to allow their business to continue without disruption, pending determination of whether or not the action is unlawful.


Yakult Australia and the National Union of Workers (NUW) were in dispute regarding the terms and conditions of Yakult's employees at one of its production plants. As part of this dispute, the NUW organised, and the employees engaged in, protected industrial action in the form of an indefinite strike. At the same time, Yakult's employees and NUW representatives engaged in picketing activities at its production plant, which involved preventing access and egress to and from Yakult's plant. As a consequence, Yakult was unable to make deliveries of product to its customers (including Coles and Woolworths). Particular employees and representatives were videotaped and witnessed blocking delivery vans and stating that they would not let anyone enter or exit the premises.


Yakult sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent its employees and the NUW representatives from continuing the picketing activities. Yakult's position was that the picketing activities constituted a nuisance, and interfered with the employer's contractual relations with third parties (including customers). Yakult did not take issue with the employees engaging in, and the NUW organising, protected industrial action but rather relied on the fact the conduct fell outside the regime established by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The Supreme Court of Victoria granted the interim injunction as Yakult was able to show, amongst other things, that the picketing activity was having a significant adverse effect on its legitimate business activities, including a net loss of profit of approximately $288,000 since the commencement of the picketing activity.

On 2 August 2022, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 was passed (Aged Care Bill), introducing important regulatory changes to Australia’s aged care sector. The Bill makes numerous legislative amendments, including to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (Aged Care Act) and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (Cth) (Transitional Provisions Act), and responds to various recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) Final Report (Report). The Report identified the provision of substandard aged care services and perceived systemic failures in the aged care sector.[1]

08 August 2022

The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022