"The ultimate purpose of the picket line in this
case was to obtain, by placing pressure on
Homeswest, assurances that organisers would have
the right to enter the Rivervale site to inspect
conditions and amenities there and ensure
compliance with the relevant requirements of the
award. I accept that it was not part of that
ultimate purpose as contemplated by Keogh and
possibly Reynolds, to either embarrass or place
economic pressure on J-Corp. I do not accept
that that purpose would have been absent from
the contemplation of Fox, Pallott and Young and
others participating in the picket line. It
was, however, highly likely and in the
contemplation of all concerned in the hierarchy
of (the B.L.F.) and on the picket line that the
existence of the picket would cause suppliers to
turn away from the site. While Reynolds and
Keogh expressly eschewed conduct which would
amount to 'stopping' suppliers they did so, I
think, in the belief that the avoidance of
physical obstruction or explicit threats or
directions would take the case out of the reach
of s. 45D. It is not possible, however, to
avoid the conclusion that they would have known
and accepted that in the absence of any express
disclaimer the picket would in all probability
have the effect of deterring entry by suppliers
onto the site. I consider that Reynolds and
Keogh accepted that probability although I allow
the possibility that they may well have regarded
it as a consequence explicable at law as the
exercise of the free choice of the supplier
rather than as a consequence of the picket. In
my opinion, however, it was a likely consequence
of the picket line. It was accepted as a likely
effect and in my opinion formed part of the
purpose of the conduct.
The question then arises whether the purpose so
established so embraced a purpose of causing
substantial loss or damage to the business of
J-Corp. The word 'substantial' requires loss or
damage which is more than trivial or minimal.
. . ."
(Emphasis supplied)