United Group Resources Pty Ltd v Calabro

THE STRUCTURE OF THESE REASONS 2 These reasons deal with four issues: (a) the first is the consideration of the approach the Court should take when such an agreement has been reached; (b) the next is the appropriate level of penalty to fix in relation to the contraventions found in United No 5 together with the question of whether part or all of that penalty ought be suspended and, if so, on what terms including the length of time such suspension should operate. Included in this discussion is consideration of the terms of an injunction to be imposed on the respondents; (c) the next is consideration of the approach that should be taken to an issue which has been described below as a civil double penalty provision; (d) finally, the question whether or not the intervener should be able to recover its costs against the respondents as sought.

AN AGREEMENT IS REACHED 3 An agreement was reached between the applicants and the represented respondents (not the intervener (the ABCC)) and is described in United No 5 (at [26]-[34]). It is reflected in the orders sought by the applicants and the represented respondents. In short, the applicants and the represented respondents agreed to contend that a penalty should be imposed on each of the represented respondents in the amount of $1,000 per day for each day on which the represented respondents contravened the BCII Act and $300 for each day they in which they contravened the FW Act.

THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF PENALTY 4 In United No 5 I set out (at [25]) the facts and legal consequences that were agreed between the parties. Those facts are an essential part of the submission advanced for the represented respondents as to the orders that should be made in respect of penalty. The agreement was as follows: … The applicants and the CFMEU Respondents [defined in para 6 of this statement of agreed facts], CEPU Respondents [defined in para 7 of this statement of agreed facts] and AMWU Respondents [defined in para 8 of this statement of agreed facts] (together, the Respondents) … agree as follows: Parties Applicants 1 During the period 22 to 30 January 2010, each applicant was: (a) a corporation incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution applied; (b) the employer of some of the Respondents; (c) a "building employer" which employed "building employees" within the meaning of the [BCII Act]; (d) a building sub-contractor engaged by [WBPL] to carry out "building work" within the meaning of the BCII Act, on the project known as the "Pluto LNG Project" or "Pluto LNG Development Project" for the development, production and processing of petroleum, including the construction of a single gas processing train and ancillary facilities between Onslow and the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia (Project); and (e) a "building industry participant" within the meaning of the BCII Act. Respondents 2 During the period 22 to 30 January 2010, each Respondent was: (a) a "building employee" whose employment consisted of or included "building work" within the meaning of the BCII Act; (b) employed by one of the applicants to undertake "building work" on the Project; (c) employed under a Commonwealth industrial instrument, which is or was a workplace agreement pursuant to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth) (Transitional Act); [The applicable industrial instruments are set out in para 4 of this statement of agreed facts] and (d) a "building industry participant" within the meaning of the BCII Act. Intervener 3 The intervener is the [ABCC] appointed under s.15 of the BCII Act who intervenes in the proceeding pursuant to section 71 of that Act. Industrial context 4 During the period 22 to 30 January 2010, the industrial instruments which covered and applied to the applicants and Respondents employed by them were: (a) United Group Resources Pty Ltd Employee Collective Pluto Project Agreement 2009; (b) AGC Industries Pty Ltd Employee Collective Pluto Project Agreement 2009; (c) Modern Access Services Pty Ltd Employee Collective Pluto Project Agreement 2009; (d) Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd Employee Collective Pluto Project Agreement 2009; (e) Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd Employee Collective Pluto Project Agreement 2009; (f) CBI Constructors Pty Ltd Interim Transitional Employment Agreements; (g) Decmil Australia Pty Ltd Employee Collective Pluto Project Agreement 2009; (h) Freo Machinery Pluto Project Greenfields Agreement 2008; (i) Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd Greenfields Agreement 2008; (j) PCH Group Limited Employee Collective Pluto Project Agreement 2009; (k) RCR Construction & Maintenance Pluto Project Greenfields Agreement 2008; (l) Positron Trident Pty Ltd Pluto Project Greenfields Agreement 2009, (together, the Industrial Instruments). 5 During the period 22 to 30 January 2010, each Respondent employed by: (a) United Group Resources Pty Ltd (first applicant); (b) AGC Industries Pty Ltd (second applicant); (c) MAS Australasia Pty Ltd (third applicant); (d) Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd (fourth applicant); (e) Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd (fifth applicant); (f) Decmil Australia Pty Ltd (seventh applicant); (g) PCH Group Ltd (tenth applicant); or (h) RCR Power Pty Ltd (twelfth applicant), was covered by an "enterprise agreement" for the purposes of section 417 of the [FW Act], each of which is a workplace agreement pursuant to the Transitional Act, and was within its nominal term. Union membership 6 Each Respondent listed in: (a) Attachment 1 was a member of the CFMEU during the whole period 23 to 30 January 2010; (b) Attachment 2 was not a member of the CFMEU during the whole period 23 to 30 January 2010, (together, the CFMEU Respondents). 7 Each Respondent listed in Attachment 3 was a member of the CEPU during the period 27 November 2009 to 28 February 2010 (together, the CEPU Respondents). 8 Each Respondent listed in: (a) Attachment 4 was a member of the AMWU during the period 27 November 2009 to 28 February 2010; and (b) Attachment 5 was not a member of the AMWU during the period 27 November 2009 to 28 February 2010, (together, the AMWU Respondents). The Project 9 The events relevant to the proceeding happened on and in relation to the on-shore component of the Project, which is situated approximately 26 km from Karratha. Exhibits A2 to A5 [which were attached to the exhibited agreement] are photographs which show the location of relevant places within and nearby the Project site. 10 The majority owner, operator and manager of the Project is Woodside Burrup, a subsidiary of Woodside Energy Ltd. 11 The Project involves, amongst other things, the construction of a single gas processing train and ancillary facilities to process gas from the Pluto and Xena gas fields located in the Carnarvon Basin about 190km north-west of Karratha, Western Australia. 12 Work on the Project commenced in around July 2007. 13 Since the commencement of work on the Project, Foster Wheeler (WA) Pty Ltd in joint venture with WorleyParsons Pty Ltd, [FWWP], has been the engineering, procurement and construction manager (EPCM) of the Project. 14 The overall performance of the building work on the Project is, and since the commencement of the building work on the Project has been, supervised by [FWWP]. 15 Approximately 3800 workers were employed to work on the Project during the period 22 to 30 January 2010. The 3800 workers referred to in this paragraph included construction and non-construction (staff) employees of the applicants and employees of contractors who are not parties to this proceeding. Rostering on the Project 16 Whilst engaged to work on the Project, the Respondents were required to work pursuant to roster cycles of one of the following configurations: (a) 4 weeks on, 1 week off; (b) 5 weeks on, 1 week off; or (c) 6 [weeks] on, 1 week off. 17 During their rostered "on-time", the Respondents' ordinary hours of work on the Project were usually worked Monday to Saturday on rostered shifts of 10 hours duration, either on a day shift usually commencing at either 6.00am or 6.30am and finishing at 4.30pm or 5.00pm respectively, or on a night shift usually commencing at 6.30pm and finishing at 4.30am. Accommodation at the Project 18 Many Respondents who perform work on the Project do so on a fly in/fly out basis. 19 Whilst each Respondent was engaged to work on the Project, they were accommodated in one of two accommodation villages (Gap Ridge Village and Searipple Village), or in their own local accommodation near the Project. 20 Gap Ridge Village is located about 20km from the project site and Searipple Village is located about 30km from the project site. 21 Gap Ridge Village contains 2,100 rooms. It is owned by Woodside Burrup and is operated for Woodside Burrup by Sodexho under the management of [FWWP]. Searipple Village is privately owned and operated not by Woodside Burrup. 22 Each of the Industrial Instruments contains terms to the following effect (in clause 42 and Appendix 7, clause 6): "42. Distant Workers Employees classified as Distant Workers as defined and International Distant Workers as defined shall be entitled to the conditions contained at Appendix 7 - Distant Work Provisions of this Agreement." "APPENDIX 7: DISTANT WORK PROVISIONS (6) The Company shall have the choice of providing each Distant Worker with either suitable board and lodging or paying the Living Away from Home Allowance set out in this Appendix." 23 During the period from 22 to 30 January 2010, many of the Respondents were Distant Workers within the meaning of the Industrial Instruments. 24 The Respondents who were accommodated at Gap Ridge Village in the period from 22 to 30 January 2010 did so on terms and conditions of occupancy which were effective from 17 June 2009 and which applied throughout the period 22 January 2010 to 30 January 2010. 25 During the period from 22 to 30 January 2010 the Applicants paid the owner or operator of the Gap Ridge Village and the Searipple Village a daily fee for the accommodation of each of their employees in those villages. Motelling 26 Until February 2010, Gap Ridge Village accommodated construction workers in single occupancy en-suite accommodation units. These accommodation units were occupied by construction workers, including some of the Respondents, on a 'dedicated' basis i.e. over the course of their work on the Project for a particular applicant, the Respondent would occupy the same particular accommodation unit during their rostered periods of work. 27 At pre-start meetings on 27 November 2009, the applicants' representatives informed their employees (who were in attendance at those meetings), including many of the Respondents, that, with effect from 4 January 2010, Woodside intended to introduce new accommodation arrangements for employees residing at Gap Ridge Village. 28 Under these new arrangements, construction workers who resided at Gap Ridge Village would no longer have use of the same accommodation unit for each period that they were rostered to work. Instead, they would be assigned a new accommodation unit each time they returned to Gap Ridge Village for a rostered period of work ("Accommodation Changes"). December 2009 dispute 29 On 1 and 2 December 2010 many of the then employees including some of the Respondents who were rostered to work failed to present for work. The absence was not authorised or agreed to by the applicants who were their relevant employers. 30 On 2 December 2009, Deputy President McCarthy of [FWA] made an order under section 418 of the FW Act requiring employees of the first applicant to return to work. The order was to remain in force until 18 January 2010. 31 All construction workers on the Project returned to work on 3 December 2009. 32 During the period 3 December 2009 to 21 January 2010, the Respondents attended work as rostered. 33 On 21 January 2010, [FWWP] delivered a letter entitled 'Subject: Acknowledgement Forms and availability of accommodation at Gap Ridge Village' ([FWWP] Letter) to between 150 and 400 Respondents on the Project who resided at Gap Ridge Village. The [FWWP] Letter concerned the introduction of the Accommodation Changes. January 2010 dispute 34 On 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010, each Respondent failed to attend for work on one or more days on which they were rostered to work, for either the whole or part of their rostered shift. 35 [The schedule to the orders now made by the Court] set out the days on which each Respondent was rostered to work and whether he or she was absent for the whole or part of their shift. Where a Respondent was absent for up to 4 hours of their rostered shift, he or she has been designated as being absent for half a day. Where a Respondent was absent for 4 hours or more of their rostered shift, he or she has been designated as being absent for a full day. 36 In each case, the absence specified in [the schedule to the orders now made by the Court] was not authorised or agreed to by any of the applicants. 37 Between 22 January 2010 and 30 January 2010 inclusive, there was no protected action ballot and no notice of intention to take protected industrial action by the Respondents or any relevant union in relation to the work at the Project. 38 Each Respondent engaged in: (a) industrial action within the meaning of s.19 of the FW Act; and (b) building industrial action within the meaning of s.36(1) of the BCII Act in respect of each day (or part thereof) on which they were absent from work as specified in [the schedule to the orders now made by the Court]. Fair Work Proceedings 39 On 23 January 2010, all applicants and others except the thirteenth applicant applied to [FWA] under section 418 of the FW Act for orders that the Respondents return to work (Application). 40 A copy of the Application was served on the CFMEU, the CEPU and the AMWU by email. 41 A hearing was held before Commissioner Cloghan of [FWA] on 23 January 2010. The hearing was attended by representatives of the applicants, the intervener, the CFMEU, the CEPU and the AMWU. 42 At the conclusion of the hearing on 23 January 2010, Commissioner Cloghan made an interim order under section 420 of the FW Act, known as the Woodside Pluto LNG Project 2009 No. 2 Order (Interim Order). 43 The Interim Order was validly made, and was published on the [FWA] website on Monday 25 January 2010 at 1.40pm AWST in accordance with s.601 of the FW Act. Service of the Interim Order was effected in accordance with the requirements of the Interim Order and the FW Act. 44 Following the making of the Interim Order, certain Respondents continued to fail to attend for work on one or more days on which they were rostered to work, for either the whole or part of their rostered shift as set out in paragraph 35 of this statement of agreed facts. Federal Court proceedings 45 The applicants commenced this proceeding on 27 January 2010. 46 On 27 January 2010, Justice McKerracher granted an interim injunction which was expressed to operate until 5.00 pm on 5 February 2010. 47 On 5 February 2010, Justice McKerracher extended the interim injunction until 5.00 pm on 18 February 2010. 48 On 18 February 2010, Justice McKerracher further extended the interim injunction until final hearing and determination of the proceeding or further order. Section 417 FW Act contravention 49 Each Respondent employed by: (a) United Group Resources Pty Ltd (first applicant); (b) AGC Industries Pty Ltd (second applicant); (c) MAS Australasia Pty Ltd (third applicant); (d) Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd (fourth applicant); (e) Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd (fifth applicant); (f) Decmil Australia Pty Ltd (seventh applicant); (g) PCH Group Ltd (tenth applicant); or (h) RCR Power Pty Ltd (twelfth applicant) contravened s.417 of the FW Act in respect of each day on which they took industrial action on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010. Section 421 FW Act contravention 50 Each Respondent (other than those Respondents referred to in Attachments 2 and 5) contravened s.421 of the FW Act in respect of each day on which they took industrial action on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010. BCII Act contravention 51 Each Respondent was motivated by one or more of the following purposes in respect of each day of industrial action taken by them on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010: (a) supporting or advancing a claim against the applicants, alternatively against the applicant which was the Respondent's employer at the time, that motelling not be introduced; or (b) disrupting the performance of work on the Project. 52 Accordingly, the industrial action taken by each Respondent on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010 was industrially-motivated action within the meaning of s.37(a) of the BCII Act. 53 The industrial action taken by each Respondent on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010: (a) related to work that was regulated by a Commonwealth industrial instrument; and (b) adversely affected each of the applicants in their capacity as building industry participants. 54 Accordingly, the industrial action taken by each Respondent on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010 was constitutionally-connected action within the meaning of s.36(1) of the BCII Act. 55 By reason of the facts and matters set out in paragraph 37 above, the industrial action taken by each Respondent on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010 was not excluded action within the meaning of s.36(1) of the BCII Act. 56 Each Respondent contravened s.38 of the BCII Act in respect of each day on which they took industrial action on 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2010. 57 Paragraphs 1 - 37, 39 - 48 and 51 of this statement are tendered pursuant to s.191 of the Evidence Act (Cth). 58 Paragraphs 38, 49 - 50 and 52 - 56 of this statement contain admissions by the Respondents, which admissions should be treated as though they were made in a points of defence filed on behalf of the relevant Respondents. 5 Notwithstanding the agreement of the parties to these sanctions including the nature and quantum of pecuniary penalties to be imposed, it is accepted by all parties that it is ultimately for the Court to determine what, if any, penalty should be imposed on the respondents. 6 Having regard to the list of factors collected by Kenny J who cited Branson, Sackville and Gyles JJ in Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72 (at [51]) in White v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2011] FCA 192 (at [5])) it can be seen that: (a) it is the responsibility of the Court to determine the appropriate penalty; (b) determining the amount of penalty is not an exact science; (c) within a permissible range the Court to acknowledge the particular figure cannot necessarily be said to be more appropriate than another; (d) there is a public interest in promoting settlement of litigation, particularly where it is likely to be lengthy; (e) the view of the regulator as a specialist body is a relevant but not determinative consideration; (f) in determining whether the proposed penalty is appropriate, the Court examines all of the circumstances of the case; and (g) where the parties have jointly proposed a penalty it would not be useful to investigate whether the Court would have arrived at that precise figure in the absence of agreement. The question is whether that figure in the Court's view is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In answering that question, the Court will not reject the agreed figure simply because it would have been disposed to select some other figure. It would be appropriate if it is within the permissible range. 7 In Wotherspoon v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2010] FCA 111, Jessup J noted (at [8] and [27]) as follows: 8 The authorities make it clear that, notwithstanding the agreement of the parties to a particular proceeding, the determination of the correct penalty is a matter for the court. The court is not obliged to accept the parties' agreement; nor is it entitled to take the easy course of doing so without deliberation. However, the authorities also show that, where the parties have agreed on a penalty, the court should give weight to that agreement, and should generally give effect to it so long as the agreed penalty falls within the appropriate range, that is, so long as it may be described as neither manifestly inadequate nor manifestly excessive. See NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285, 291 and 298; Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72 at [51]; Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543, 553 [57] and 564 565 [129]. On any view, it will be necessary for the court in a case such as the present to acquaint itself with the facts of, and surrounding, the admitted contraventions and to derive from those facts an understanding of the extent and nature of the conduct of the respondents, and of the gravity of that conduct generally. Without putting itself in this position the court will not, in my assessment, be able to carry out the task committed to it in accordance with the authorities to which I have referred. … 27 The touchstone by reference to which to approach the question whether the penalties agreed in the present case are either manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive is that the penalties should pay "appropriate regard to the circumstances in which the contraventions have occurred and the need to sustain public confidence in the statutory regime which imposes the obligations.": Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560, 580 [91]: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Williams (2009) 262 ALR 417, 428. Although it is not the function of the court to substitute its own preferred penalties for those agreed by the parties, it is necessary for the court to come at least to a general view about the seriousness of the conduct involved in the admitted contraventions of s 38 of the BCII Act. Before doing so, I should say something about the parties' agreement of 22 September 2008, and about the schedule of proposed penalties upon which the applicant relied. 8 Factors the Court may also take into account in effectively approving or ratifying the agreement include the following: (a) the Court must be satisfied that the penalties that have been agreed are appropriate in the circumstances of the case; and (b) the public interest in promoting a settlement of litigation (see, for example, Mobile Oil Australia (at [51]) and in the context of industrial law, White (at [5]) per Kenny J and Wotherspoon (at [8] and [27]) per Jessup J). 9 In addition, the attitude of the ABCC as a regulator of the industry is also a relevant consideration (Hardwick v Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (2010) 198 IR 312 per Gordon J (at [13])). The ABCC does not contend that the level of the penalties is inadequate. Its concern is with the suspension of them. It submits, and I accept, that: (a) significant penalties are warranted in the case of each of the represented respondents having regard to the 'deliberate and calculated nature of the unlawful conduct' to which they admitted, the number of employees involved it the unlawful industrial action, the extent of the losses caused by the unlawful industrial action, the objects of the BCII and the FW Acts and the need for specific and (most importantly) general deterrence. It refers to Hadgkiss v Aldin (2007) 164 FCR 394 (at [60]-[66]) per Gilmour J, amongst other cases; and (b) the penalties on which the applicants and the represented respondents have agreed fall within the permissible range. 10 As to the unrepresented respondents, the ABCC submits, and I accept, that the only relevant point of distinction is that while the former admitted their contraventions of the BCII and the FW Acts, the latter did not. However, the lateness of the represented respondents' admissions and the fact that the unrepresented respondents did not contest the evidence led by the applicants and the ABCC resulted in this point of distinction having little significance. The ABCC submits that the principle of parity should prevail indicating that a penalty in the same amount for both sets of respondents would be appropriate. I accept all these submissions. 11 The ABCC strongly opposes the suspension of the penalties. It points to the fact that the only case in which penalties imposed under s 49(1)(a) of the BCII Act have been suspended are Hadgkiss, referred to above and Stuart-Mahoney v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2008) 177 IR 61 per Tracey J and Stuart v LU Simon Builders Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 107 per Marshall J. I will consider these arguments in detail below. 12 A contravention of industrial laws may now be regarded more seriously than has been the case in the past as noted by Merkel J in Finance Sector Union of Australia v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2005) 147 IR 462 (at [72]). These observations were endorsed by the Full Court in Plancor Pty Ltd v Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union (2008) 171 FCR 357 (at [62]) per Branson and Lander JJ. 13 In Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2010] FCA 977, Barker J noted that the task with which a sentencing judge was faced was one of 'instinctive synthesis' as that expression has been used on a number of occasions. His Honour's approach was upheld by the Full Court (North, McKerracher and Jagot JJ) in McDonald v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2011] FCAFC 29. 14 The represented respondents submit and I accept that the authorities show that a non-exhaustive range of factors may be relevant in assessing the appropriate penalty in the circumstances of a particular case and include: 1. the nature and extent of the contravening conduct; 2. the circumstances in which the conduct took place; 3. the period of the conduct; 4. the nature and extent of any loss or damage sustained as a result of the conduct; 5. whether the contraventions were distinct or arose out of the one course of conduct; 6. whether or not the breaches were deliberate; 7. whether senior management was involved in the conduct; 8. whether there has been any contrition exhibited; 9. whether the party committing the breach has taken any corrective action; 10. whether the party committing the breach has cooperated with the prosecutor; 11. whether there has been similar previous conduct by the respondent; 12. the size of the business enterprise involved; and 13. the need for general and specific deterrence. 15 Some caution is required in adopting a check list approach because doing so is counter intuitive to the process of 'instinctive synthesis': see Buchanan J in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560 (at [91]). 16 The present case is unique with an unprecedented number of individual respondents the subject of enforcement proceedings for breaches of industrial laws. All of the represented respondents have made admissions as to their contravening conduct as part of a settlement with the moving parties - the applicants. Those admissions have saved significant Court time and resources. The admissions have promoted the important policy central to all modern litigation that parties be encouraged so far as possible to resolve their disputes in such a way as to minimise recourse to the adversarial system. It is argued, therefore, that considerable weight should be accorded to two central themes. The first of these is the resolution effected between the primary litigating parties and the second is the caution with which any position adopted by the intervener may be permitted to give rise to an outcome inconsistent with that resolution unless there is a compelling basis to do so. 17 It is contended for the represented respondents that the totality of the proposed orders warrants consideration in its entirety. In particular, the represented respondents point to the fact that the duration and nature of the permanent injunction agreed to by each represented respondent is highly significant. A period of seven years restraint covering work to be performed or potentially performed at either of the three very substantial LNG operations in Western Australia is a significant remedy. They submit that the legitimacy of a suspension of the agreed pecuniary penalties is reinforced by the terms of the proposed final injunction. A particularly compelling reason to order suspension in this case, it is argued, is that suspension will promote specific and general deterrence. 18 By s 545(1) of the FW Act, this Court is empowered to, if it be satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision to make any order that the Court considers appropriate. The generality of that power is not derogated from by particular examples of its exercise enumerated under s 545(2). Further, s 546(1) confers a more specific power upon an applicable court where it is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision, to order a person to pay a pecuniary penalty that the Court considers is appropriate. Maximum penalties have been provided for in s 546(2). Those penalties qualify the general express language of s 546(1). 19 In the present circumstances, there is nothing, taken in context or with regard to the purpose of the FW Act, which would militate against a construction of s 545 that would exclude a power to suspend a pecuniary penalty notwithstanding the width of the language employed. If anything, the express purpose of the FW Act as enacted in s 3 and the purpose necessarily implicit in Ch 4 (namely, to enable eligible courts to enforce applicable industrial standards with outcomes that are fair and just), further reinforces that the literal meaning of s 545 is in fact the legal meaning. 20 It is agreed by the primary litigating parties including the ABCC, that the sanctions for imposition on the represented respondents are within a range that would have been fairly open to the Court had the question of penalty been contested. They are neither manifestly excessive nor manifestly inadequate. It is argued, and I accept, that it is in the interests of justice for the Court to endorse the primary litigating parties' resolution by imposing sanctions consistently with the terms of the settlement reached. 21 The ABCC makes the point that the overriding principle is to ensure that the sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the contravening conduct: Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 (at 92-93) per Wells J. As discussed by Lander J in Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543 (at [93]-[94]), the purpose is to be served by the imposition of penalties are: (a) punishment, which must be proportionate to the offence and in accordance with the prevailing standards; (b) deterrence, both personal (assessing the risk of reoffending) and general (a deterrent to others might be likely to offend); and (c) rehabilitation. 22 In relation to the statutory scheme, the ABCC stresses that the object of the legislation will be relevant when assessing the appropriateness of any penalty to be imposed against the respondents. In this regard, it points to s 3(1) of the BCII Act which provides that the main object of the Act: is to provide an improved workplace relations framework for building work to ensure that such work is carried fairly, efficiently and productively for the benefit of all building industry participants and for the benefit of the Australian economy as a whole. (Woodside Burrup Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2011] FCA 949 (at [21]-[22] per Gilmour J). 23 The BCII Act aims to achieve that object by the means set out in s 3(2). Those include promoting respect for the rule of law and ensuring that building industry participants are accountable for their unlawful conduct. 24 In the Second Reading Speech of the BCII Act it was stated that industrial action: negatively impacts on industry productivity. Industrial unrest and time lost through work stoppages cause immediate loss to head contractors, subcontractors and employees … This Bill seeks to implement a framework where unlawful industrial action is not tolerated and those taking such action are brought to account for their lawlessness. 25 In assessing the gravity of the conduct, ABCC submits that regard should be had to the: (a) obvious consequences that the unlawful industrial action would have had considering the economic significance of such a large scale resources project to the Australian economy as explained by Mr Milne in his affidavit; (b) the seriousness of the unlawful industrial action having regard, particularly, to its unprecedented scale and the resultant disruption caused to the construction of the Project; (c) circumstances of aggravation of the respondents' conduct as demonstrated by their continuance of the unlawful industrial action for five days in defiance of the Fair Work order and introduction of issues during the unlawful industrial action unrelated to motelling; (d) the prolonged period of the unlawful industrial action, being seven days from 22 to 30 January 2010; (e) the fact that many of the respondents took action in relation to the same issues at the same Project on 1 and/or 2 December 2010; (f) the fact that the respondents' conduct in all instances was deliberate and in complete disregard to the objectives of the BCII Act; (g) the fact that some of the respondents are not first time contraveners of the BCII Act; (h) the impact that the respondents' unlawful conduct had, not only on the operations of the employer but also on follow on trades that were subsequently delayed from performing their work as a result of the unlawful industrial action; (i) the lack of any evidence of union or third party involvement or encouragement in the unlawful industrial action; (j) the need for general deterrence; (k) the need for specific deterrence; and (l) the failure of the respondents to acknowledge their 'guilt'. In the case of the unrepresented respondents, this is so at all and in the case of the represented respondents, it was not until the late stages of the proceeding, almost two years after the proceeding was commenced and when the hearing of the trial was about to proceed that admissions were made. Indeed, seven hearing dates were required in September 2011 resulting in the parties incurring significant costs that would not have been incurred had the respondents made the admissions as to liability at a much earlier stage. 26 The ABCC points to a list of issues including 11 claims made by respondent who are employees of the first, second, third, fourth and twelfth applicants on 27 and 28 January 2010. 27 The ABCC submits that the Court should infer from the claims included in that list of issues that one or more of those claims amounts to the advancement of claims by respondents employed by applicants to whom the list of issues were issued in respect of the employment of those respondents and the unlawful industrial action was also 'industrially motivated' for the purposes of s 36 of the BCII Act by the list of issues. I pause to observe that that finding has already been made. The list of issues was presented to the applicants four days before the end of the unlawful industrial action. As such, the ABCC submits that given there is no evidence that any of the applicants met the demands made by the respondents it should be inferred that a reason for the continuation of the unlawful industrial action past 27 January 2010 was the applicants' refusal to heed the claims included in the list of issues. The framework of the BCII Act and the FW Act make it plain that it is simply unlawful to take industrial action in support of such claims prior to the nominal expiry date of the particular industrial instruments. The presentation of the list of issues was an opportunistic attempt by those respondents to make demands of their employers in circumstances where they were not entitled to do so under either the BCII Act or the FW Act. The ABCC argues that the issuing of the list of issues to certain applicants was designed to have the effect of placing additional pressure on them to accede to the demands of the respondents if they wanted unlawful industrial action to cease. In addition to their defiance of the Fair Work order, those respondents disregarded their lawful obligations to comply with the BCII Act and the FW Act by presenting that list of issues to certain of the applicants part way through the unlawful industrial action. The ABCC contends this factor ought be weighed heavily in favour of imposing an immediate penalty rather than a suspended penalty, so as to achieve the necessary objectives of general and specific deterrence. 28 The ABCC relies upon an affidavit of Mr Ian Douglas Fraser which refers to two episodes of prior industrial action in which some of the respondents were involved. There were approximately 735 respondents involved in one of those incidents. The first of those episodes was the industrial action that was the subject of Gilmour J's decision in Woodside where the applicant brought proceedings against the CFMEU and Mr McDonald for their unlawful involvement in the industrial action at the Project on 1 and 2 December 2009. 29 The ABCC also points to the evidence of industrial action engaged in by employees of CBI Constructors Pty Ltd during construction phase five of the expansion project in a LNG gas plant that neighbours the Project between 14 and 28 October 2008 (the Phase V strike). The Phase V strike was the subject of a decision of Gilmour J in CBI Construction Pty Ltd v Abbott [2008] FCA 1629 in which the respondents contravened s 38 of the BCII Act by engaging in unlawful industrial action. Fifty-one of the respondents in the proceeding were found to have contravened s 38 of the BCII Act and s 496 of the WR Act which was the predecessor provision to s 421 of the FW Act by engaging in the Phase V strike. 30 It is clear, submits the ABCC, that many of the respondents have previously engaged in industrial action and at least 51 of the respondents are not first time contraveners of the BCII Act or provisions akin to s 421 of the FW Act. They should not, therefore, it is submitted, be treated as first time offenders. 31 Insofar as prior relevant conduct is concerned, the ABCC relies upon the judgment of Barker J in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2010) 187 FCR 293 (the City Square Case) in which the agreed principles of prior conduct to be taken into account in assessing penalty, namely: (a) Similar prior conduct may be taken into account in assessing penalty, but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty that is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant contravention: Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 (at 477). (b) Similar previous conduct may demonstrate that a respondent has a history of engaging in the particular conduct in question, that the penalties previously imposed were insufficient to deter the respondent from re-engaging in that conduct and that the respondent has failed to take adequate steps to prevent further contraventions. Previous contraventions may demonstrate that the respondent has manifested in the commission of the latest contravention a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law. In such a case, ' retribution, deterrence and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted': Veen (at 477). (c) A sentencing court looks to the general record of the offender, his or her attitude to the law as disclosed by such conduct, apparent attempts at retribution and similar considerations. Repeated conduct of a particular kind may lead to an indentified need to provide some particularly persuasive form of deterrent against similar future conduct: Temple v Powell (2008) 169 FCR 169 (at [64] per Dowsett J. (d) A respondent is not to be punished again for the prior conduct. Prior conduct may diminish leniency by reason of good character, having an upward affect on penalty, albeit within the proper limits indicated by the circumstances of the immediately contravening conduct: R v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111 (at 113). (e) The character of the conduct and its relevance to the industrial behaviour which the instant legislation seeks to address is determinative, not whether the prior conduct arose under different legislation or different provisions of the instant legislation: Stuart-Mahoney (at [44]-[46]). 32 Insofar as deterrence is concerned, the ABCC points to the large scale of the industrial action the subject of the case and the widespread publicity that it attracted. It argues that those circumstances render general deterrence and extremely important consideration in the assessment of the appropriate penalty. The general deterrence is directed to ensuring that the penalty will act as a deterrent to others who might be likely to act unlawfully. It should be of the kind that it would be likely to act as a deterrent in preventing similar contraventions by likeminded persons. If it does not demonstrate an appropriate assessment of the seriousness of the offending, the penalty will not operate to deter others from contravening the relevant provision: Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 549. 33 The ABCC submits that for the penalty to achieve the two aspects of deterrence, specific and general, 'it must be imposed at a meaningful level consistent with the other considerations that must be taken into account in determining the appropriate level of penalty'. There is a need to show 'the seriousness with which the Court considers such contraventions': Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v IPM Operation and Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No 2)[2007] FCA 11 per Young J (at [66]). 34 Insofar as post-contravention conduct is concerned, any contrition, corrective conduct or cooperation with relevant enforcement authorities after the contravention will have relevance to penalty. Contrition may manifest itself in an expression of remorse. The ABCC submits that there is no evidence of any contrition or remorse in these proceedings. 35 Cooperation, on the other hand, can be exhibited in a range of ways such as agreement on facts or agreement on penalty. The timing of any such agreement and the impact it has on the conduct of the trial and witnesses who would have been called at trial are relevant: Stuart-Mahoney (at [52]). 36 It is in this context that the ABCC stresses the lateness of the agreement reached. From this it follows that there should be a very limited discount to the respondents for their admissions and no discount for the unrepresented respondents who have at all times avoided the Court's processes and failed to respond to the proceeding. 37 Moreover, the ABCC submits that the respondents' conduct in the case forms part of a course of conduct for the purposes of s 36(3)(b) of the BCII Act. This amounts to each respondent having committed one act of unlawful industrial action in contravention of s 38 of the BCII Act, for which the maximum penalty is $22,000 and one contravention of s 421 of the FW Act for which the maximum penalty is $6,600: Hadgkiss v Aldin (at [76]). 38 Insofar as the totality principle is concerned, as a final check on the appropriateness of the penalties to be imposed, it is necessary to see whether the overall penalty is just and appropriate in the circumstances. The penalty which is fixed must be appropriate for each individual contravention and then as a check at the end of the process, it must be determined whether the aggregate is appropriate for the total contravening conduct: McDonald v R (1994) 48 FCR 555 (at 556). The aggregate of penalty imposed must not be 'oppressive or crushing': Stuart-Mahoney (at [60]). Impecuniosity of any respondent has not been raised as an issue in the proceeding and should not, therefore, be taken into account in the assessment of penalty, according to the ABCC. 39 The ABCC contends that the application of the totality principle is compulsory, not discretionary. It is said that a court must give effect to the principle where more than one contravention has been established: Johnson v R (2004) 78 ALJR 616 (at [35]). 40 The aggregate of the agreed penalty is, for a respondent who engaged in the full seven day period of the unlawful industrial action and admitted to contravening s 38 of the BCII Act and s 421 of the FW Act, $8,500. For respondents who engaged in the unlawful industrial action for less than the maximum seven day period, it is proposed that the total penalty be reduced by $1,000 per day for the respondents who contravened s 38 of the BCII Act plus an additional $300 per day if the respondent also breached s 421 of the FW Act. 41 The ABCC says, and I accept, that on a proper application of the totality principle, the total amount of the penalties is appropriate and within the permissible range being neither manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate having regard to the conduct in question taking into account the respondents' prior relevant conduct.

Injunctions 42 The only additional aspect of argument advanced for the applicants which should presently be addressed is the question of the terms of the injunction. 43 The applicants and the represented respondents have agreed that it would be appropriate for the Court to grant an injunction in the following terms: Each AMWU Respondent and CEPU Respondent be restrained for a period of seven (7) years from the date of this Order from doing any of the following whenever they are employed or otherwise engaged by any of the applicants: (a) engaging in or being a party to or in ay way associated with or otherwise involved in any of the following actions in relation to building work on the Pluto LNG Project, the North West Shelf Project or the Browse LNG Project including construction and operations, and any future expansions of those projects (Projects) (i) failing or refusing to attend work on the Projects or failing or refusing to accept or perform work on the Projects at all; (ii) performing work on the Projects otherwise than in accordance with the terms of his or her employment contract; (iii) performing work on the Projects in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or adopting any practice in relation to work on the Projects, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of that work; except where such actions: (i) are authorised or agreed by the respondent's employer; or (ii) are based upon the respondent's reasonable concern about an imminent risk to the respondent's health or safety and the respondent has not unreasonably failed to comply with the directions of the respondent's employer to perform other available work, whether at the same or another workplace, that was safe and appropriate for the respondent to perform; (b) interfering with or in any way disrupting the performance of work on the Projects by any of the following means: (i) imposing, maintaining or aiding, abetting, encouraging, directing, procuring, inducing, advising or otherwise being involved in any bans, limitations, restrictions or delays on the performance of work or the acceptance of work by any of the applicants' other employees to be performed under their terms of employment or in a manner which work is customarily performed with the applicants; and (ii) imposing, maintaining or aiding, abetting, encouraging, directing, procuring, inducing, advising or otherwise being involved in the taking of days off by any of the applicants' other employees otherwise than in accordance with rosters specified by the industrial instruments and employment contracts regulating their employment with the applicants. Definitions 'the Browse LNG Project' means the project known by that name for the development, production and processing of petroleum and includes the off-shore and on-shore components of that project. The off-shore components of that project relate to the production of petroleum from the Brecknock, Calliance and Torosa fields located approximately 425 kilometres north of Broome, Western Australia and the on-shore components of that project relate to the on-shore processing of petroleum, currently anticipated to be located at James Price Point, near Broome, Western Australia. 'the North West Shelf Project' means the project known by that name for the development, production and processing of petroleum and includes the off-shore and on-shore components of that project. The off-shore components of that project relate to the production of petroleum from various fields located in the region approximately 130 kilometres north west of Karratha, Western Australia and the on-shore components of that project relate to the on-shore processing of petroleum at the Karratha Gas Plant in Karratha, Western Australia. 'the Pluto LNG Project' means the project known by that name or by the name Pluto LNG Development Project for the development, production and processing of petroleum and includes the off-shore and on-shore components of that project. The on-shore part of that project includes the construction of a single gas processing train and ancillary facilities between Onslow and the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia. 44 In relation to the injunctive orders, the applicants submit that the Court has a wide discretion to make any orders it considers appropriate including the granting of an injunction by reference to s 49(1)(c) and (3) of the BCII Act and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court Act) and s 417(3) and s 421(3) of the FW Act. 45 For convenience, s 23 of the Federal Court Act provides as follows: 23 Making of orders and issue of writs The Court has power, in relation to matters in which it has jurisdiction, to make orders of such kinds, including interlocutory orders, and to issue, or direct the issue of, writs of such kinds, as the Court thinks appropriate. 46 Also for convenience, s 417(3) and s 421(3) of the FW Act provide as follows: 417 Industrial action must not be organised or engaged in before nominal expiry date of enterprise agreement etc. … Injunctions and other orders (3) If a person contravenes subsection (1), the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court may do either or both of the following: (a) grant an injunction under this subsection; (b) make any other order under subsection 545(1); that the court considers necessary to stop, or remedy the effects of, the contravention. 421 Contravening an order etc. Injunctions (3) The Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court may grant an injunction, under this subsection, on such terms as the court considers appropriate if: (a) a person referred to in column 2 of item 15 of the table in subsection 539(2) has applied for the injunction; and (b) the court is satisfied that another person to whom the order applies has contravened, or proposes to contravene, a term of the order. 47 Where a statute provides for a court to give relief in the form of an 'injunction', the remedy must take its content from the terms of the legislation (Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 (at 394)). While such orders involve similar principles to those considered in cases concerning traditional equitable injunctions (Varley v Varley [2006] NSWSC 1025 (at [22]), statutory provisions may give the courts power to grant injunctions when Courts of Equity would not do so. Thus the factors to be considered by a court when determining whether such statutory relief should be granted go beyond the scope of traditional equitable relief. Most statutes which empower a court to grant statutory injunctions are 'public interest' statutes and as such the prime objective of the power thus conferred is to compel compliance with the statutory obligation so as to ensure that the public interest is served. To that end, it is relevant to consider whether granting the injunction would have some utility or serve a purpose within the contemplation of the legislation (Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mauer-Swisse Securities Ltd (2002) 42 ACSR 605 (at 607). 48 In the context of unlawful industrial action, the statutory power to grant an injunction to restrain conduct does not depend upon the Court reaching a finding that the respondents intended to engage in conduct of that kind in the immediate or distant future. However, the fact that such unlawful conduct has occurred in the past may make the Court more disposed towards ordering relief (United Group Resources Pty Ltd v Calabro (No 2) (2010) 192 IR 160 (United No 2) (at [22]) and Attorney-General (Ex rel Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia) v Beck [1980] 2 NSWLR 77 (at 94-95)). 49 The purpose of the injunction will be to restrain a repetition of the contravening conduct or any similar conduct: Woodside (at [156]). The applicants contend that it is significant that the industrial action the subject of these proceedings was not a 'one-off' isolated incident. Rather, it took place in the period from 22 to 30 January 2010 and was triggered by the decision to introduce 'motelling' accommodation at the Gap Ridge Village. 50 The initial announcement of that decision in late November 2009 also resulted in unlawful industrial action taking place by most of the employees of the contractors working on the Pluto Project on 1 and 2 December 2009. The earlier industrial action on 1 and 2 December 2009 caused both significant disruption to work on the Pluto Project as well as substantial loss and damage as did the subsequent industrial action in the period from 22 to 30 January 2010. The extent of that damage is disclosed in the affidavit of Mr Milne, sworn on 22 November 2011 (at [64]-[66]). 51 It is also significant, the applicants contend, that with the exception of one minor incident involving unprotected industrial action by a small number of scaffolders who left the work site as a mark of respect for a former construction worker who had died elsewhere, the injunction granted by the Court in February 2010 (which remains in force now) has seemingly resulted in there being no further industrial action at or in connection with the Pluto Project. The evidence for this also comes from the affidavit of Mr Milne. 52 The granting of the injunction also has the benefit of deterring the respondents from engaging in contravention in the future by attaching to any such contraventions the range of sanctions available for breach of a court order: see Woodside (at [157]) and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976 (at [70]-[80]) where Lindgren J observed at the end of that passage (at [77]-[79]) as follows: 77 It is important to recognise that the discretion to grant an injunction under s 80(1) is not governed by the constraints that apply where a court is exercising a jurisdiction governed by general equitable principles, although no doubt the same considerations, if they are present, could be relevant. An example is a threat of repetition. 78 In the present case, there is no evidence of a threatened repetition of the contravention or a threat of any other contravention of the Act by Qantas. The purpose of injunctive relief here is therefore not to ensure that a threatened course of action does not occur. Rather, the purpose is, like that of imposition of the pecuniary penalty, that of deterrence - specific deterrence of Qantas and indirectly, general deterrence. 79 In jointly submitting that the three year time limit on the injunction is appropriate, the parties refer to the following considerations: (a) the conduct ceased over two years ago; (b) the Court has not previously found contraventions of the Act by Qantas; and (c) Qantas "has, by its thorough investigation, its admissions, its assistance to the applicant's investigation, its contrition, and its substantial upgrading of its compliance programme internationally, demonstrated both a willingness and a genuine desire to prevent repetition". 53 On the affidavit evidence of Mr Milne relied on by the applicants, many of the respondents continue to undertake construction and commissioning work on the Pluto Project. In addition, as a result of the specialised skills and experience which the respondents have in working on the LNG processing plants, it is likely that a significant number of them will be engaged to undertake: (a) construction work on additional LNG processing drains at the Pluto Project and new LNG processing drains on the Browse Project; and (b) maintenance work on the Pluto Project, Browse Project and/or North West Shelf Project. Woodside has a substantial equity interest in each of those Projects. 54 As the terms of the proposed injunction would, if granted, only restrain unlawful conduct, the relief sought would be consistent with the objects of the BCII Act and the FW Act. The proposed injunction agreed to by the parties forms an essential component of the settlement between the parties. If the injunction is not granted, the balance of the agreement at least as between the parties would also be in jeopardy. 55 The proposed injunction is in the public interest by reason of the importance of the resources projects. The evidence of Mr Milne emphasises the importance of the Pluto LNG Project, the North West Project and the Browse LNG Project to the Australian economy and the need to protect Australia's reputation as a reliable oil and gas supplier. The width of the injunction both geographically and as to conduct over a period of years may be justified by the conduct which is the subject of the contravention: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1546 (at [8]) per Gyles J where an injunction for four years was agreed between the parties and granted by the Court. 56 The injunction agreed by the parties in the present case is intended to operate for a defined period of seven years. That lengthy period of time is said by the applicants to be appropriate and reasonable in view of the likely time it will take Woodside and its joint venture partners to undertake the planned construction and maintenance works at the Pluto Project, the Browse Project and the North West Shelf Project as evidenced by Mr Milne. That term is less than the permanent injunction granted by Gilmour J in Woodside which permanently restrained the CFMEU from engaging in or being involved in any industrial action on or in connection with Pluto Project, the Browse Project and the North West Shelf Project including construction and operations and any future expansion of the Projects.

Suspension 57 As indicated, the ABCC has made it clear that it largely supports the settlement reached between the applicants and the represented respondents with the exception of the suspension in entirety of the agreed penalties. 58 As indicated, the joint position presented by the applicants and the represented respondents is for a seven year period of suspension of the penalties against the respondents but with a seven year injunction against the respondents and the applicants to release the respondents from their claim for damages. An undertaking is to be provided by the CFMEU and the AMWU and the CEPU and the applicants are to release those entities with respect to any actions in respect of the December 2009 strike an the unlawful industrial action and each party is to bear his or her or its own costs. 59 The ABCC complains that while the undertaking to be provided by the unions would benefit the applicants and achieve a positive outcome for the future industrial harmony on Woodside's North West Shelf Projects, it serves as no form of punishment against the respondents for the unlawful industrial action and ought not be weighed in favour of the fully suspended penalty or in the question of penalty at all. 60 The ABCC argues that in relation to the injunction aspect, it does nothing more than require the respondents to comply with the lawful obligations albeit with the potential added consequence of contempt if they breach the injunction. It relates only to 'building work'. It is unclear, it is said, as to whether 'building work' is intended to be defined as per s 5 of the BCII Act. However defined it would appear that the injunction's utility during the commissioning phases of the Project or the subsequent operational phase where construction was not present would be questionable. The proposed injunction was likely to only be enforceable by the applicants to protect the Project for the next three to four months whilst construction work was being performed. The respondents, in engaging in the unlawful industrial action, it is said, have already demonstrated disregard for the industrial laws and there is evidence that unprotected industrial action has occurred since the imposition of the interlocutory injunction by me on 27 January 2010. 61 The practical reality, the ABCC contends, is that the seven year suspension will have little or no effect on the respondents. The settlement terms, it is said, provides no description of the circumstances that would invoke payment of the suspended penalty. Presumably, this would be if a respondent breached the BCII Act and/or the FW Act within the next seven years but, it is said, that this is not explicit within the terms of the injunction. It is said that there is no mechanism specified by which the Court or an affected applicant or the ABCC would be alerted if a respondent was to engage in an unlawful industrial action within the next seven years, assuming that conduct of this type would invoke payment of the suspended penalty. Further, it is common knowledge, it is said, that labour force working in the fly-in, fly-out resources industry where the Project is located is transient and geographically widespread. It is likely that a significant number of the respondents would not be working for the same employer applicants as they were when they engaged in the unlawful industrial action and/or on Woodside project in the North West Shelf for the duration of the seven year period. 62 It is argued that if a respondent was to engage in unlawful industrial action within the next seven years and he or she was working for a different employer, not working for one of the applicants and/or not working on the Woodside Project in the North West Shelf, then there would be likely to be very little appetite for any affected applicant to commence action against the respective respondent if, indeed, such an applicant even became aware of a breach. It follows, it is said, that the suspended penalty proposed would have no role to play if one of the respondents engaged in conduct that might otherwise invoke the suspended penalty if he or she were not working on a Woodside Project in the North West Shelf. So, for example, if a respondent commenced work for Chevron on the large neighbouring Gorgon Project and went on strike, there would be unlikely to be any consequence for such a respondent doing so in terms of the suspended penalty. 63 Accordingly, it is contended that the lack of clarity in the terms of the proposed settlement and the high degree of improbability that any respondent would be brought to account by having the suspended penalty pursued in the event of further breach was such that endorsing such position on suspension of penalty would not serve the principles of specific and general deterrence. 64 The ABCC accepts that the Court does have power to suspend the penalties but that a full suspension would not satisfy established principles and would be inconsistent with established practice and not be commensurate with the intention of Parliament. The ABCC argues that the respondents' conduct 'demonstrated a complete disregard for the terms in the industrial instruments and struck at the very heart of the main object of the legislation'. It is argued that the conduct of the respondents ought be regarded as even more serious than it otherwise might have been based on the contravention of the Fair Work order and the fact that the respondents deliberately flouted the terms of the that order.

CONCLUSION ON PENALTY 65 It is, in my view, significant that the represented respondents have reached agreement with the applicants as to the figure of penalties and that the ABCC agrees that the penalties proposed fall within the permissible range. Further, the applicants and the represented respondents have also reached agreement as to the terms of the final injunction which they submit should be granted by the Court. 66 The same penalty should be imposed on all respondents to the proceeding irrespective of whether they have entered an appearance and actively participated in the case. In that regard, the principle of parity requires that as between co-offenders there should be no marked disparity between those sentences that would give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance. There must be a due proportion between co-offenders' sentences so that there is equal justice between them (Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606) as discussed by Dawson and Gaudron JJ in Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295 (at 301). There is no difference between the objective seriousness of the conduct of the represented respondents and the conduct of the unrepresented and non-appearing respondents. All employees participated in the same deliberate industrial action which had a significant operational and financial impact on the applicants and on Woodside. 67 Insofar as cooperation is concerned, although the represented respondents admitted liability and agreed with the applicants on the relief which should be granted by the Court, it is true to say that they did not do so until the commencement of the hearing. Indeed, some of those respondents did not reach agreement until after some days after the hearing had commenced. As a consequence the applicants were required to file and serve a significant number of affidavits, subpoena 20 witnesses to give evidence at the hearing and to prepare for a three week hearing in which almost every element of the three causes of action being pursued by the applicants was put in issue. 68 In addition, the represented respondents required the applicants and third parties to the proceeding to give discovery of a significant number of documents and to appear at an interlocutory hearing concerning the discovery of additional documents. 69 On the other hand, it was also necessary for the applicants to read affidavits and tender documents in order to prove their cases against the non-appearing respondents. That process, however, did not take a significant amount of time during the three weeks of the hearing period. The non-appearing respondents did not demonstrate any contest to any of the evidence and have not made submissions on the question of liability. 70 The cooperation of the represented respondents at the commencement of the hearing may be balanced against the fact that the non-appearing respondents did not contest the evidence adduced by the applicants at the hearing. In the end, any basis for imposing a different penalty on any particular group or set of respondents on the basis of cooperation would be slim. 71 It is significant in my view that the effect of an injunction is to deter the respondents from engaging in contraventions in the future by attaching to any such contraventions the range of sanctions available for breach of a court order. As noted, many of the respondents continue to undertake construction and commissioning work on the Pluto Project and are likely to continue to do so. As also noted, the respondents have refrained from breaching the Acts since injunctive orders were last made by the Court. There have been very clear warnings to the respondents as to the potentially serious consequences of breach of the injunctions with which they have been served. 72 The terms of the proposed injunction, I am satisfied, would, if granted, only restrain conduct which is unlawful. Therefore, the relief is consistent with the objects of the BCII Act and the FW Act. The proposed injunctions agreed by the parties forms an essential component with the settlement between the parties. It is in the public interest by reason of the importance of the resources projects to the Australian economy and the need to protect Australia's reputation as a reliable oil and gas supplier. 73 The scope of the injunction both geographically and as to the seven year timeframe may be justified by the conduct which is the subject of the contravention. The injunction agreed by the applicants and the represented respondents is intended to operate for a defined period of seven years which is appropriate and reasonable in view of the likely time it would take Woodside and its joint venture partners to undertake the planned construction and maintenance works at the Pluto Project, the Browse Project and the North West Shelf Project. 74 I do not think it is correct to say that an injunction does no more than simply require the respondents to comply with a law. As noted, a breach of injunctive orders carries a special consequence independently of any statutory breach. The represented respondents must be taken by virtue of their legal representation and their acceptance of the terms of the injunction to be aware of the consequences of such orders. Although the unrepresented respondents have not necessarily had the benefit of such advice, the principle of parity requires that they should be treated in the same way. In my view, having regard to all the factors indicated above and, particularly, the length and breadth of the terms of the injunction, the suspension of penalties agreed between the applicants and the represented respondents but opposed by the ABCC taken together with the injunctive orders represents an appropriate disposition of the matter in accordance with the sentencing principles that I have discussed.

Mr Comia's specific position 75 Mr Comia, one of the respondents, appeared in Court at the penalty or remedy hearing. Liability had been established against Mr Comia on the basis of an affidavit of Mr John Kaskow. Mr Comia gave evidence that he worked half a day on Friday, 22 January 2010 and Mr Kaskow, in his affidavit says the same thing, namely, that Mr Comia worked for five hours. Mr Comia says that he did not work on Saturday, 23 January 2010 with which Mr Kaskow agreed. Mr Comia says he worked a full day on Monday, 25 January 2010. Mr Kaskow agreed with that. Mr Comia said that he worked on Australia Day, 26 January 2010 and Mr Kaskow agreed. Mr Comia said that he worked half a day on Wednesday, 27 January 2010. Mr Kaskow, in his affidavit, said that Mr Comia worked for five hours. Mr Comia said that he did not go to work on Thursday, 28 January 2010 and Friday, 29 January 2010 which Mr Kaskow also agrees with. Mr Comia says he went back to work on Saturday, 30 January 2010 and worked a full day which Mr Kaskow agrees. There was nothing in Mr Comia's affidavit to say that he was not aware of the Court proceedings or was not adequately informed that the proceedings were to be conducted so as to enable him to present any defence. 76 Mr Comia accepted the evidence of Mr Webster as to the days that he was absent but said that he just put himself in a safe position and did not want to be penalised. He was concerned about the safety from people who were striking. This is something I was prepared to take into account in relation to penalty only as distinct from liability in light of the fact that the liability hearing had concluded. In relation to the safety issue, it was clear from the affidavit of Mr Webster that on Wednesday, 27 January 2010, the day of the meeting, 42 of the 50 persons at work left the site with only eight remaining at the site. Mr Comia was one of the 42 who left. The next day, the first day of the picket, Thursday, 28 January 2010, 50 out of about 205 AGC employees came to work and the next day, Friday, 29 January 2010, 50 out of about 205 AGC employees came to work. Any worry that Mr Comia felt about safety was presumably felt by the 50 or so persons who came to work on 28 and 29 January 2010. Those three dates were also dates where the injunctive orders should have been observed which was a countervailing consideration to any particular personal or individual circumstance unique to Mr Comia. 77 Mr Comia should and will be treated in the same manner as other respondents.

CIVIL DOUBLE JEOPARDY 78 Section 556 of the FW Act provides as follows: 556 Civil double jeopardy If a person is ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under a civil remedy provision in relation to particular conduct, the person is not liable to be ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under some other provision of a law of the Commonwealth in relation to that conduct. 79 The ABCC contends that the civil double jeopardy provision in its submission would preclude the imposition of penalties in relation to both the contraventions of the BCII Act and s 417 of the FW Act because those contraventions relate to the same conduct, namely, the taking of industrial action. The applicants take a different view. The respondents did not specifically address the point. 80 In supplementary submissions concerning s 556 of the FW Act, ABCC reinforces the point that once a person has been ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under s 417 or s 421 in relation to particular conduct, then s 556 operates to preclude that person's liability to be ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under any other provisions of law of the Commonwealth, such as s 38 of the BCII Act in relation to the same conduct: see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Abbott (No 4) [2011] FCA 950 per Gilmour J (at [26]). The ABCC submits that no order could be made in the proceedings imposing separate penalties under both s 417 and s 38. Rather, it is necessary to elect between the provisions. The ABCC has elected penalties under s 38. 81 Section 421 was in a different category as the conduct was different. It was a failure to comply with the order not to engage in industrial action. 82 The applicants, however, submit that s 556 simply embodies the totality principle. The applicants contend that in construing the phrase 'particular conduct' in s 556 of the FW Act it is necessary to have regard to the essential factual ingredients that must be proven in order to establish the contravention of the statutes in question. The applicants argue that the definitions of industrial action under the FW Act and the BCII Act are materially different. In particular, under the BCII Act an authorisation or agreement for an employee to take action is only an exception to the definition of industrial action if two additional elements are satisfied. First, the authorisation or agreement must be recorded in writing. Secondly, the authorisation or agreement must be given or made in advance (s 36(1)(e) of the BCII Act and s 19(2)(a) of the FW Act). There is no equivalent of s 36(2) of the BCII Act and the FW Act concerning the burden of proof for the safety exception. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of industrial action in s 36(1) of the BCII Act require, as an additional element which is not required by the FW Act, that the performance of work be prescribed by an industrial instrument or an order of an industrial body or that there be the requisite connection between the work and an industrial dispute. Therefore, the applicants argue s 556 would not be engaged. 83 The applicants submit that it is open to the Court to impose a single penalty on each respondent under s 38 of the BCII Act rather than by separate penalties under the BCII Act and the FW Act. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd (No 2) (2002) 190 ALR 169, Finkelstein J held (at [38]) that it was not necessary to determine whether separate penalties could be imposed for separate contraventions. 84 Imposing a single penalty on a respondent under s 38 of the BCII Act, the Court has regard to the overall conduct of each individual respondent including the fact that the industrial action in which the respondent engaged in contravention of s 38 of the BCII Act also constituted one or two contraventions of the FW Act. A similar approach was taken by Burchett J in Trade Practices Commission v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (Express Freight case) (1995) ATPR 41-375 (at [20]) in which his Honour held that it was appropriate to select certain only of the contraventions for the imposition of penalties, taking into others into account, but not imposing separate penalties in respect of them. A similar approach was also taken by Mansfield J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Rural Press Ltd (2001) ATPR 41-833 (at [16]-[17]) and Finkelstein J in ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd (No 2) (at [38]). 85 In my view, that is an appropriate approach in the present circumstances. It is also an approach which is supported by the respondents and does not appear to conflict with the submissions of the ABCC. 86 Adopting that approach and in order to ensure that the penalties should be imposed and the respondents accorded proper sentencing principles including parity and proportionality, the following daily penalties will be imposed: (a) $1,300 per day if a respondent contravened s 38 of the BCII Act and s 417 and s 421 of the FW Act on a particular day; and (b) $1,200 per day if a respondent contravened s 38 of the BCII Act and s 421 of the FW Act on a particular day; (c) $1,100 per day if a respondent contravened s 38 of the BCII Act and s 417 of the FW Act on a particular day; (d) $1,000 per day if a respondent only contravened s 38 of the BCII Act on a particular day; and (e) $300 per day for respondents 817 and 825 who contravened both s 417 and s 421 of the FW Act on a particular day but not s 38 of the BCII Act.

COSTS 87 Turning to the question of costs, ABCC asserts that the usual rule as to costs 'following the event' should require the respondents to pay its costs of the proceedings insofar as they relate to the admitted contraventions of s 38 of the BCII Act. The represented respondents, however, point to the fact that there is no usual practice that an intervener will receive costs, even if its contentions are accepted or the outcome of the proceedings otherwise accords with the arguments advanced by the intervener. The applicants accept this. See Johnston v Cameron [2002] FCAFC 301 (at [19]), Motor Trade Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus [2007] FCA 1878 (at [31]) and Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 (at [53]). 88 The respondents point to the fact that the relevant event in terms of costs following the event in all practical terms is the resolution between the applicants and the respondents of the 'matter' that ultimately sources the Court's jurisdiction. That is the subject matter that was for determination in the proceedings and the associated liabilities that were at issue. A significant component of the resolution, (which it may be inferred was an aspect of the compromise effected), was that the parties with the sole exception of the ABCC agreed to bear their own costs. 89 The Supreme Court of South Australia has noted that a successful intervener would be entitled to his or her costs only if the intervention was necessary to protect his or her rights as would be the case if no party contended for the position adopted successfully by the intervener: City of Burnside v Attorney-General South Australia (1994) 63 SASR 65. That is clearly not this case. 90 It does not follow simply as a matter of course that an intervener even if he or she is a Minister of the Crown and responsible for administration of the legislation in question in the case should automatically be entitled to costs from the unsuccessful party to the litigation in which the Minister intervened. This is so, even if the intervention is well intentioned and proves to be of assistance to the Court: Liverpool City Council v Weir (1984) 58 ALJR 213. 91 The status of an intervener may vary from case to case and according to different legislation. In this instance, the source of the ABCC's intervention in the public interest in certain civil proceedings before the courts is derived from s 71(1) of the BCII Act. Section 71 provides: 71 ABC Commissioner intervention in court proceedings (1) The ABC Commissioner may intervene in the public interest in a civil proceeding before a court in a matter that: (a) arises under this Act; or (b) arises under the Independent Contractors Act 2006, the FW Act or the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 and involves: (i) a building industry participant; or (ii) building work. (2) If the ABC Commissioner intervenes in a proceeding under subsection (1), the ABC Commissioner is taken to be a party to the proceeding and has all the rights, duties and liabilities of such a party. 92 Although there is conferred on the ABCC by s 71(2) the status of a party, in the present litigation the interests of the ABCC are in no way the same as those of the numerous other parties to it. For the applicants and the represented respondents there are direct corporate and personal interests at stake in the outcome of the proceedings. In the present case, unlike the individual personal respondents, the ABCC has not been at risk of pecuniary penalties being ordered against it. Unlike the applicants, the ABCC is not at risk of having the performance of work disrupted if industrial action of the kind the subject of the proceedings is repeated. An observation to similar effect was made in Rickus (at [34]) where Flick J said: Although APRA has intervened in the proceedings and thereafter has all the rights, duties, and liabilities of a party, its interests are in no way the same as those of the other parties. An order as to costs either in its favour or against it must take into account the role it has assumed and its participation in the proceedings. If APRA's only legitimate interest is in the making of submissions, then any costs as may be awarded may be confined to the undertaking of that task. Its future participation in the current proceedings must await a consideration of the fate of any application for leave to further amend the existing pleadings. 93 In Rickus, Flick J in addressing the question of costs of an intervener (APRA), noted (at [31]) following O'Keeffe Nominees Pty Ltd v BP Australia Limited (No 2) (1995) 55 FCR 591, that in the absence of any express restriction on an order for costs that may be made concerning intervention, s 43 of the Federal Court Act applies. His Honour also followed Carr J's observation in Mallina Holdings Ltd v Biala Pty Ltd & TS Holdings Pty Ltd (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Carr J, 4 February 1997) that an intervener may in an appropriate case be granted an order for costs. In that case his Honour allowed for a private intervener who had intervened with leave in order to address allegations made against it by the unsuccessful party on the grounds that the intervention was appropriate and the position for which the intervener contended had been vindicated. The costs, however, were reduced to reflect what Carr J considered to have been the reasonable extent of the intervener's participation in the proceedings. In Rickus, Flick J also concluded (at [34]) that an order for costs in favour of APRA must take into account the role it had assumed in its participation in the proceeding. If APRA's only legitimate interest were the making of submissions, then any costs that may be awarded might be confined to the undertaking of that task. 94 The ABCC stresses that it had a statutory right to intervene in the proceedings in the public interest. It had a legitimate role to play in the proceedings to act in the public interest. It took a responsible approach in that there was no unnecessary duplication of work or hearing time between the applicants and the ABCC. Its participation was of assistance to the Court particularly in relation to those issues on which the ABCC had principal carriage such as the industrial motivation of the respondents. The ABCC argues that it has achieved practical success because the respondents have been found to have contravened amongst other things the BCII Act and will be penalised in respect of those contraventions. The ABCC draws a comparison between this case and Liverpool City Council v Weir. Here, liability to pay the ABCC's costs would not impose an extra burden on the respondents who are not being asked to pay the costs of the applicants. The ABCC says the agreement between the respondents and the applicants is irrelevant. 95 The respondents strongly argue that the case was instituted and diligently pursued by well resourced applicants who sought findings of liability (relevantly to the present application for costs) under s 38 of the BCII Act and the imposition of penalties and injunctive relief against the respondents. There was no difference in the position between the applicants and the ABCC on the issue of liability, however, the ABCC did not take a particularly active role in the litigation. For example, it led no evidence going to liability. 96 In the absence of settlement, there would have been a lengthy trial on liability of the represented respondents. This was avoided by those respondents and the applicants executing a statement of agreed facts as part of an agreement to resolve the litigation. The statement of agreed facts included a comprehensive acknowledgement of liability by the represented respondents. The ABCC was not and is not a party to that agreement. 97 Further, the ABCC filed one affidavit only in relation to penalty. That affidavit goes to an issue of limited significance. It attaches a number of business records in relation to the work stoppages of 1-2 December 2009. The evidence and submissions did not cause me to depart from the agreed penalties or their suspension. 98 In this particular case, it was not necessary for the ABCC to prove a case as such or advance with success an argument advanced by no other party. But rather it intervened in proceedings already commenced by the applicants and in those proceedings admissions were made by the respondents and an agreement reached between the respondents and the applicants. In those circumstances, the usual understanding of the expression the 'successful party' to which the general costs rule might attach has a slightly different meaning in that although the ABCC could not be said to have been generally unsuccessful, the satisfactory outcome of the litigation was achieved independently of its direct involvement. In saying this, I do not overlook the assistance the Court received from the ABCC on the industrial motivation point. 99 Other conclusions I have reached in relation to the penalty aspects of the case in which I have determined the suspension issue adversely to the submission of the ABCC have been driven by particular regard to the view that I take, at least, of the significant public interest factors concerned. A similar approach ought be taken also to the costs question in light of the particular statutory function that the ABCC is required to perform in the public interest. 100 Further, given the very considerable lengths which have been gone to in order to achieve the settlement in this case, to impose over and above that settlement an award of costs in the s 38 proceedings, would not simply be compensatory but rather would have a punitive effect on the respondents. Such an effect is not the purpose of an award of costs. It would undermine the balance achieved by the orders agreed by the applicants and the represented respondents after extensive negotiation. 101 In this context, I am also mindful of the possibility that making a costs order at this stage in favour of the ABCC against the represented respondents may not only be punitive to those respondents but also send a signal to workplace relations participants to an industrial dispute of considerable scope and consequence that despite a resolution being agreed, there remains the risk of a costs order adverse to many parties to the dispute at the behest of the Government regulator. This may operate as a disincentive to such parties to pursue such settlement resolutions. It would not advance the objectives of the legislation under the two Acts. Nor do I consider it would conform with the objectives of s 37M and s 37N of the Federal Court Act. 102 While the ABCC through senior counsel has greatly assisted the Court and has conducted its case with efficiency, courtesy and respect for its opponents, ultimately the only issue on which it took a view from the other parties was the question of suspension of penalty and it has lost on that issue. It would be a curious outcome if the ABCC were to recover costs notwithstanding that it lost in the only issue which was contested. 103 I make the following orders: 1. A suspended daily penalty of $1,300 be imposed on each respondent in respect of each day he or she contravened s 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) (BCII Act) and s 417 and s 421 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). 2. A suspended daily penalty of $1,200 be imposed on each respondent in respect of each day he or she contravened s 38 of the BCII Act and s 421 of the FW Act. 3. A suspended daily penalty of $1,100 be imposed on each respondent in respect of each day he or she contravened s 38 of the BCII Act and s 417 of the FW Act. 4. A suspended daily penalty of $1,000 be imposed on each respondent in respect of each day he or she contravened s 38 of the BCII Act only. 5. A suspended daily penalty of $300 for respondents 817 and 825 in respect of each day they contravened both s 417 and s 421 of the FW Act but not s 38 of the BCII Act. 6. The penalties specified in orders 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above become immediately payable by a respondent in the event that he or she is found by a court to have contravened the BCII Act or the FW Act in respect of any conduct by that respondent at any time within seven years from the date on which these orders are made. 7. In the event that any penalties become payable in accordance with order 6 above, they be paid to the intervener. 8. Each respondent be restrained for a period of seven years from the date of these orders from doing any of the following whenever he or she is employed or otherwise engaged by any of the applicants: (a) engaging in or being a party to or in any way associated with or otherwise involved in any of the following actions in relation to building work on the Pluto LNG Project, the North West Shelf Project or the Browse LNG Project including construction and operations, and any future expansions of those projects (Projects): (i) failing or refusing to attend work on the Projects or failing or refusing to accept or perform work on the Projects at all; (ii) performing work on the Projects otherwise than in accordance with the terms of his or her employment contract; (iii) performing work on the Projects in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or adopting any practice in relation to work on the Projects, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of that work; except where such actions: (i) are authorised or agreed to by the respondent's employer; or (ii) are based upon the respondent's reasonable concern about an imminent risk to the respondent's health or safety and the respondent has not unreasonably failed to comply with the directions of the respondent's employer to perform other available work, whether at the same or another workplace, that was safe and appropriate for the respondent to perform; (b) interfering with or in any way disrupting the performance of work on the Projects by any of the following means: (i) imposing, maintaining or aiding, abetting, encouraging, directing, procuring, inducing, advising or otherwise being involved in any bans, limitations, restrictions or delays on the performance of work or the acceptance of work by any of the applicants' other employees to be performed under their terms of employment or in a manner which work is customarily performed with the applicants; and (ii) imposing, maintaining or aiding, abetting, encouraging, directing, procuring, inducing, advising or otherwise being involved in the taking of days off by any of the applicants' other employees otherwise than in accordance with rosters specified by the industrial instruments and employment contracts regulating their employment with the applicants. Definitions 'the Browse LNG Project' means the project known by that name for the development, production and processing of petroleum and includes the off-shore and on-shore components of that project. The off-shore components of that project relate to the production of petroleum from the Brecknock, Calliance and Torosa fields located approximately 425 kilometres north of Broome, Western Australia and the on-shore components of that project relate to the on-shore processing of petroleum, currently anticipated to be located at James Price Point, near Broome, Western Australia. 'the North West Shelf Project' means the project known by that name for the development, production and processing of petroleum and includes the off-shore and on-shore components of that project. The off-shore components of that project relate to the production of petroleum from various fields located in the region approximately 130 kilometres north west of Karratha, Western Australia and the on-shore components of that project relate to the on-shore processing of petroleum at the Karratha Gas Plant in Karratha, Western Australia. 'the Pluto LNG Project' means the project known by that name or by the name Pluto LNG Development Project for the development, production and processing of petroleum and includes the off-shore and on-shore components of that project. The on-shore part of that project includes the construction of a single gas processing train and ancillary facilities between Onslow and the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia. 'building work' has the meaning given to it by s 5 of the BCII Act and includes maintenance and commissioning work. 9. There be no order as to costs of the proceeding. I certify that the preceding one hundred and three (103) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice McKerracher.

Associate: Dated: 2 May 2012 RESPONDENTS' SCHEDULE 'A' AS AMENDED Appearances Filed Calabro Braeden Pearce Symeon Lee Samuel Johansson Michael Connor John Fiocco's (19/11/10) Roberts Mitch McCarty Grant Grigarius Travis Webb John Kendall Simon Scahill Adam Watkins Lee Gilmour Sam Hales Rory Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Brenton Michael Henaway Caleb Carman Steve Hosking Peter Day Paul Peek Carl Kohler Bradley Fiocco's Lawyers Smith Shannon Fiocco's Lawyers Clements Andrew AINSWORTH Michael Fiocco's (19/11/10) ALWAYS Peter Gibson & Gibson (18/1/11) ARKEVELD Dirk Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BAKBAK Bekir BARCHAM Stephen BARKER Georffrey BARTON Richard BARWISE Richard Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BEILKEN Grant Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) BERMINGHAM Simon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BENKIRANE Abdellilah Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BIGLIN Scott Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BLACKBOURNE Eden Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BLOOR Graeme Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BODY Ross Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BOGOEVSKI Tom BOWERS Gerard BRIAGAS Genaro Address for service filed 24/10/11 BRITCHER Colin Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) BROWN John BROWN Mark Fiocco's (19/11/10) BROWN Matthew Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BROWN Thomas Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BROWNE Keith Gibson & Gibson DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) BUNNER Colin Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) BUNYAN Paul Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) BURGER David Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 BURNS James BYERS Shannon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CALLAGHAN Stephen CAMPBELL Bevan Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) CAMPION John Fiocco's (22/12/10) CARANDANG Adrian Address for service filed 24/10/11 CARDOSO Joaquim CARR William Gibson & Gibson (11/5/10) CASAS Ramon CASSIDY Chris Gibson (con-11/5/10) Fiocco's (9/9/11) CATTLE Leslie Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) CHARDON Anthony Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) CHO Han Jeong Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) CHO Myoung Ho CLAY Luke CLAYBURN Richard Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CLIFTON Dane Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) COLEMAN Allen COLEY Keith Fiocco's (19/11/10) COMIA Irineo Address for service filed 31/10/2011 COOK Geoffrey COSMOS Maria Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CREAM Kevin Address for service filed 8/11/2011 CREASEY Grant DANIELL Jared DAVIS Faisal DELLAGOSTINO Ray DOLAR Angel DOWDLE Greg DOWNES Joshua Discontinued 29/08/11 Middletons (19/11/10) ELLIOT Trevor ELLIS Brendon ELLIS Gavin FABER Andrew Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) FINLAYSON Dean FOLEY David FRANCIS Steven FRASER David Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) GARVIE Sean Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GAZEY Liam Fiocco's (19/11/10) GEOGHEGAN Aaron GIBBONS Jean GIBBS Wayne Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GODDEN Toby GREENLAND Rewi GREHAN Paul Fiocco's (19/11/10) HALLAM Neil Gibson & Gibson (con-11/5/10) HANN Troy HANSFORD Gordon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HARDINGHAM Victor HARRIS Aiden Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HARRIS Jack Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HARRIS Paul HEBBARD Quinton Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) HILL Rodney HILLIER Dion HOPA Boyd HOWELL Dylan HOY Dion HUBBERT Zeke JACK John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) JAENSCH Corey JAHN Brad Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) JEFFERIES Mark Gibson & Gibson (3/12/10) JENKINS Mark Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) JONES Steven Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) JOSEPHS Anthony JOVANOVIC George Gibson & Gibson KAMPMAN Michael KERMODE William Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) KHOO Meow-Ling KIM Hyong Joo KIM Jae Uk KIM Keumyul KIM Tae Shir KNOWLER Steven KOLAR Slavko KYUNG Kyuyel LEDGER Todd Fiocco's (19/11/10) LEE Anthony LEE Chongil LEE Hyungkil LEE Kyuyil LOVE Ray LUCKMAN Graham LYNCH Brian MACFARLAN Chris MACKENZIE Alex MAIN Craig Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MAMUDI Mudzait Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MARQUES Augusto Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MARSDEN Warren MARSHALL Roy Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MARTIN Kean MATIC Mirko MATTHEWS Michael MAXWELL Matthew McBRIDE Neil McCONNELL Terry McDERMOTT Dermott MCLEAN Graham McMILLAN Ian Fiocco's (6/12/20011) MITCHELL-NGAWAKA Bruno Fiocco's (6/12/20011) MOON Lee MOREIRA Manuel Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MORTI Rosita MULLIGAN Barrie NA Myoung Ho PAEHUA Charles Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PAKU Albert PALLIER Matthew PALLIER Stephen PAMVOUXOGOLOU Benjamin Fiocco's Lawyers PELOSI Steven PEPPER Shane PES James Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PES Leslie Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PIVA Bernard POTTS Paul POUYE Paul Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PRATLEY Steven Fiocco's (31/3/11) PUKE Taare QUINTO Arturo Address for service filed 31/10/2011 RAMADANI Berat Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) RAO Keith Address for service filed 2/11/2011 RAVEN Grant RICHARDSON Andrew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) RIGLEY Peter ROBERTS Ricky Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ROBINSON Brian Fiocco's (19/11/10) ROSALES Dennis SABINE Tom SARNADSKY Kenneth SATUROS Perlito SCHULTZ Drew SEONG Ki Young SEONG Lak SEWELL John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SHAVE Anthony SKIPINA Aleksandar Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SKIPINA Vladmir Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SMITH Jeff SMITH Ryan SOLOMON Trevor SONG Dong Jin SONG Kichul SOUN Sareun STIVALETTA Joey Fiocco's (6/12/2011) STOJOSKI Zoran Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) SUYAT Bienvenido Address for service filed 26/10/2011 SYGUWA Richard Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) TANNER Bradley Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) TAYLOR Raeminn TENISELI Leo THOMAS Gary Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) THOMPSON Tui THOMSON Matthew TURNER Paul TURNER Anthony Gibson & Gibson (3/12/10) VALENTINO Anthony VAN TRAN Khanh Fiocco's (9/12/10) VENTURA Fabio Gibson & Gibson (18/1/11) VOICAN Jacob Fiocco's (19/11/10) VOICAN Marian WALKER Trevor Fiocco's (19/11/10) WALLACE Joe WALSH Bruce Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WARD Ches WEBB Luke WESTON Steve Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WILLIAMS Neil WILSON Peter Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WOJTCZAK Natasha Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) YARRAN Ray Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) YATES Darrell Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) YEE Ah Meng (Sunny) YOUNG Jamie YOUNG Suk Park (Yong?) ZABEL Ernest Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) BRAND Gregory Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BROWN Keith CASEY Michael Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CHAPPELL Harold Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) CLINCH Fred COUTTS Alan Fiocco's (19/11/10) DEVINE Robert Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) FARIU Terry FULLERTON Paul Fiocco's (9/12/10) GANTER Jake GATHERCOLE SMITH Carl HENRY Anthony Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HOPPER Catherine Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) JOHNS Steven Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) KEDDELL, Mason LUBRIG Alfred Fiocco's (19/11/10) MATHISON Warwick Fiocco's (19/11/10) MILES Blake MITCHELL Euan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MORGAN Sherman Fiocco's (19/11/10) NGATAMARIKI Tangi Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Discontinued 15/12/2011 Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PASSMORE Brett PAYNE Graham Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PUERTA David SARDELIC Antony Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SIMS Luke SMITH Malcolm Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) STEVENSON, Carl Fiocco's (19/11/10) STEPHENSON, Keith Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) STUBING Bradley Fiocco's (19/11/10) UPOKO Tuaere VAUGHAN Michelle Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ANDERSON Joshua AUGUST Anthony Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BARBER Russell Biddiscombe John Blythin Kevin Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Brinkley Kristian Fiocco's (19/11/10) Brooksby John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Burkhardt Ron Capolicchio Brett Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Cavallaro Domenico Cooper Stephen Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Cooper Tasman Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Cornish Mark Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Daly Jarrod Fiocco's (6/12/20011) Dodd Adrian Evans Simon Finn Beryl Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Freeman Steven Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Glentworth Brooke Godrei Pradeep Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Goodson Matthew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Green Kori Hartley Mark Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Hayes Karim Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Hooton Nathan Howard Ben Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Hugill Christopher Juras Frank Fiocco's (19/11/10) Kino Aaron Fiocco's (31/3/11) Lee Damien Mam Nara Mam Narak Marshall Shane Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Mcnamara David Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Mcnulty Marin Minifie Terry Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Morrison Jon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Murray Mike Fiocco's (19/11/10) Namok Mark Fiocco's (19/11/10) Nunes Andrew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Osborn Christopher Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Parker Troy Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Peacock Michael Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Peterson Trevor Fiocco's (19/11/10) Phillips Richard Fiocco's Lawyers (Gibson & Gibson 6/12/2011) Phillips-Mitchell Gavin Fiocco's (19/11/10) Pitt Stanley Ratima Khimbo Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Reuben Marvin Revill Brent Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Roberts James Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Sant Troy Sarson Jason Smith Steve Smith Shayne Fiocco's (19/11/10) Suter Julian Address for service filed 19/10/2011 Thompson Brian Tito David Van Rooyen Kristy Fiocco's (31/3/11) Warahi Damian Wells Brayden Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Williams Adam Willing Mark Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Wrathall Shannon Yates Scott Yu Lida AINSWORTH Shaun AUSTIN Grant Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) AXTON Shannen BALL David Fiocco's (19/11/10) BATZLOFF Mark BELLESINI Katie Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BICKLER Adrian Fiocco's (19/11/10) BOLTON Lyall Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CLIFFORD Tully COHEN Andrew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) COLEMAN Ronald CRAVEN Matthew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DICKINSON Pauline DIXON Shayne Fiocco's (19/11/10) DUNNE Maria DRUMMOND Matthew Fiocco's (19/11/10) EDDINGTON Spencer EMMOTT Rebecca Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) FITZGERALD Warren Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) FLETT Steve Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) FURLONG Katrina Fiocco's (19/11/10) GRAY Matthew GRAY Richard Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GREENWAY Darryl Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HARDWICK James Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HARRISON Brian Fiocco's (19/11/10) HINES Gregory Fiocco's (19/11/10) HOPKINS Gareth Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HOW Adrian Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) LAMBERT Harold Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) LANDGREN Mick Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) LYE Warwick Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) McDONALD Ronald Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) McVINISH, Rosalee Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 NELSON Steven O'REILLY Richard Fiocco's (19/11/10) OTT Jonathan Fiocco's (19/11/10) REED Michael Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) RETTKE Robert Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) RICHARDSON Matthew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ROFF Andrew ROGERS Malcolm Fiocco's (19/11/10) ROSS Adam Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ROWE Greig ROWE Raymond Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SCHWARZ Peter Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SEYMOUR Ashley Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) TAYLOR Nathan TAYLOR John Fiocco's (19/11/10) THOMSON Gary Fiocco's (19/11/10) WALKER Ken Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WAUGH Duncan Fiocco's (19/11/10) WELLS Brian ZELINSKI Sonya Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ABBOTT Ben Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) ALCIBAR Philip ALEXANDER Raymond ALI Paul ALLSOP Simon Gibson & Gibson (11/5/10) ANDERSON Steven Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) ANDERSON Stephen Fiocco's (19/11/10) ARMSTRONG Paul ATKINS Daniel Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ATKINSON Khan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BACHE Guy Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BAKER Chris Balazic Robert Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) BALLINGER Paul BAMBERRY Russell Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) BARRON Dale BARRY Peter BATE Gordon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BELL Robert Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BERRIDGE Helen Fiocco's (31/3/11) BOXALL Darren Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BOZTEPE Serkan Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BRODIE Peter Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BRUEN Gerard (Ged) BURCH Michelle BURGETT James Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BURTON Daniel DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 BUTTACAVOLI Anthony CABRILOVSKI George Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CALBALA Deborah Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CALCOTT David CALLANAN Barry CANAL Jose CARRIES Louis CARRUTHERS John Fiocco's (22/12/10) CARTER Chad Ficcco's (con-11/5/10) (9/9/11); Gibson (con-28/5/10) CARY Eric CERVINI Marc Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) CHAPMAN Scott CLAPHAM Wade CLARKE Tony Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CLAY Adam Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) COLEMAN Matthew Fiocco's (31/3/11) COLLARD Kelvin COLLINS Wayne DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 COOK Ben COULTER Jesse Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CRAWFORD Robert (Dave) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 CROSS Sidney Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) CUMMING Kenneth Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 CURTIS Robert Fiocco's (19/11/10) DACOMBE John DASTOL Ronald DAVIES Jason DAVIS Greg Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DAW Robert DAW Stephen Fiocco's (19/11/10) DAWES Shane Fiocco's (19/11/10) DAY Matthew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DEMAIO Sam DERRICK Robert DEVINE Scott Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DOWLING Graham DOWSETT Keith D Schapper (16/3/11) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) DRACA Bogoljub (Bob) DUNCAN Anthony Fiocco's (19/11/10) DUNN Deborah DWYER Regan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ECCLES Lee ELDERIDGE Ben Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) ELLIOTT Francis Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) ELPEZ Marijan Fiocco's (6/12/20011) EMMANUEL Harry DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 EMSLIE John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) (9/9/11); Gibson (con-28/5/10) ERCEG James Fiocco's (6/12/20011) EVANS Zach FARRUGIA Dennis FERGUSON Margaret FERGUSON Michael FIELD Michael FITZROY Corey FLAHAVIN Joseph Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) FLETCHER Ryan Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) FORBES Adrian FORREST Robert Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) FOWLES Tony FRADL Robert Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 GILLESPIE Don GIVNEY Shane GLASS Tyson Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GLASS Victor Gibson & Gibson (11/5/10) GLYNN Martin Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GODFREY Andrew GOLUB Aleksander Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GOODALL Adrian GRILLS Dean Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) GRIVINS Justin HAINES Danny HARRIS Robert Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) HARRIS Patricia Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HAYES Clint Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HEBBARD Leith Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) HEBDEN Garth Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HIKU Frank HODDY Graeme Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) HOLLOWAY Rodney HOLT Robert Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) HOOYBERG Eric HOPPE Dennis Fiocco's (19/11/10) HOWARD Morgan Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) HUGHES Murray HULL Kevin ISAIA Ben JANNEKER Clinton Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) JARRETT Grant Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) JONES Peter JONES Rodney Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) JONES Richard JONES Raymond Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 KAAKA Rima KATSCHNER Lothar KEEGAN Daniel KEILY Shaun KELLY Gavin KELLY Shane KELLY Mick Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Kemp Michael KING Joel KING Mark KORVER Glenn KOUKA Boydie KRAKOUER James LAING Derek LAMB Darren Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) LARSEN Leonard LAWRENCE John LAWRIE Lachlan Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) LEANING Jason Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) LEO Graham Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) LEONARD Troy Fiocco's (19/11/10) LEWIS Nerralie LI Andrew LIEBKE Steven Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) LIVINGSTON Anthony LLOYD Martin Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) LORD Michael Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) LORTAN Gregory (Greg) Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) LOTZ Terrence LOWE Darren Fiocco's (19/11/10) LUELING Freddi Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) LYONS Brock Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MANN James Gibson & Gibson (27/1/11) MATTHEWS Terry MCCLUTCHIE Eugene MCDONALD Malcolm Fiocco's (19/11/10) MCDONALD Cathy (Cate) Fiocco's (19/11/10) MCFARLANE Craig Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MCGUIRE Alastair Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) MCLAREN Anne Fiocco's Lawyers MCLAREN Mark MCMILLAN Brett MELLOR Trevor MILNE Andrew Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) MINNER Robert MLEZIVA Sacha MOONEY Matthew MORRIS Patrick Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 MURPHY Phillip NAIDOO Manivasagan Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) NELIS Joseph Fiocco's (19/11/10) NGAWHIKA Shane Gibson & Gibson (24/12/10) NICHOLLS Andrew NOCK Alan Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) NOVOSELL Erwin Fiocco's (6/12/20011) O'MALLEY David ORMEROD Jacqueline Fiocco's (31/3/11) OTTAWAY Kate Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PAJONK Michael PALEVINO Dennis Gibson & Gibson (11/5/10) PATU Tuakaua PATYI Richard PAVLIK Robert Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PAYNE Mark PEDLER Robert PETERSEN Malcolm Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) POOLE Michael PRIDDETH Jake Gibson & Gibson (24/12/10) PUATA Troy PUATA Aaron PURCEL Michael QUALTROUGH Scott QUINLESS Fred Gibson & Gibson (11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 RANN Dylan Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) RAYMAN Carl REGAN Les REID Jethro RIDDELL Jeffrey RITCHIE Jason RIVAS Anthony ROBERTS Douglas ROBERTSON James (Jim) ROSANES Renie ROSS Yancy-lee Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) RUDOLF (CUMBERS) Renee Fiocco's (31/3/11) SANDERS Michael Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SAXBY Zallman SCALES Simon Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) SCANTLEBURY Robin SCHAECHE Eric SCHOONER Raimona (Joe) Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SCULLION Joseph Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) SCULLION Neil SEMMENS Jai Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SHAND Derick SHELLY Ben SIMPSON Tahi SLOMAN Janet Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SMITH Barry SMITH Peter SMITH Bruce Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) SPARKE Cassie SPRAGUE Matthew Fiocco's (19/11/10) STARCEVIC Martin STRANG Matthew SWINDLEHURST Kevin TAHI TAHI Antonio TAMATEA Patrick TANGIORA Clinton DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) TASKER Patricia Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) TE MIHA Deon THEXTON Gary TICEHURST Michael TIMMERMANS James Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) TOAKLEY Matthew TOMS Robin TYSON Shane Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) VAAI Lasalosi VAN EETEN Daniel VARIAN Shane VELLA Jesse Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) VOZAREVIC Bruno WATSON Rebecka Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WEARNE Adam Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) WEBB Paul WEIR Kristian Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WETERE Louis WHELPDALE Eddie WHITE Ramon WHITE Brett WILKINSON Norman Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) WILLIAMS Keetha Address for service filed 8/11/2010. WILLSHIRE Andrew (Andy) WILSON Troy Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 WOODLAND Jamie WOOLLASTON Simon WRIGHT Colin Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) YEONG Kam Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) ABELHA Daniel John D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) BISKUP Michael D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) DAVEY SIMON. E. D Schapper (26/11/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) EGGERS Simon D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) EVERITT James Derek Schapper (Fiocco's 8/9/11) GARDENER Ross D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) GOUGE Jason D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) GUYATT Duane D Schapper (20/12/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) HARRISON Robin Derek Schapper (Fiocco's 8/9/11) HEARD Darren D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) HEYWOOD Samuel D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) HOLMES Paul D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 JORDAN Aaron D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) KENNEDY Wayne D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) KIMPTON Timothy Derek Schapper (31/3/11) KIRKPATRICK Kevin D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) LEACH A. TA. LETTE Bradley D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MCCARTNEY Nicholas D Schapper (3/12/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MEARDI Alberto D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MESSAGE S. TA D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MITCHELL Leigh. E. D Schapper (26/11/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MULVEY Paul E. D Schapper (20/1/11) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 Fiocco's (19/11/10) PHILLIPS David D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) PRIESTLY M. TA. SHEASBY Robert Fiocco's (1/2/11) SMITH B. E. SPANGEN Shannon D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) WATTS Steve D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) WEBB Ashley D Schapper (con-14/5/10, non-con 26/11/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) WILKS Brad D Schapper (21/1/11) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) ASIATA Moses ATKINS Te Rongonui Fiocco's (19/11/10) BISHOP Matthew BLAKE Sean BRYAN Jason Fiocco's (19/11/10) BURNS Darryl COLLINS Craig COOMBES Michael Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) COOPER Layton COOPER Aaron DAVID Julian Fiocco's (31/3/11) DEVINE Cash DIOSAN Radu Fiocco's (22/11/10) DROLLET Kayne DUNN Nigel Fiocco's (19/11/10) EMERY Manny Fiocco's (19/11/10) Gibson (3/12/10 and 8/9/11) FIAMANYA Dzifa FINCARYK Oscar Fiocco's (31/3/11) FORBES Anthony Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GABRIEL Iarere (Eddie) Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) GARNER Stephen GATHERCOLE-SMITH Justin Fiocco's (22/12/10) GIBBS Jacob Fiocco's (19/11/10) GLASS Steven Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HAPE Kahu HARTLEY Dean Fiocco's (22/11/10) HAYES Craig Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HINAKI Randal Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HOWE Duane IEREMIA Sipili Fiocco's (19/11/10) IND Matthew JAYME Steven JENSEN Ross Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) KAISER Michael Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) KEARNS Clinton Fiocco's (19/11/10) KELLY Stuart KIRTLEY Jai KLAPKO Andrew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) KOMENE Robert KOUKA Bennett LANDMETER Harry LODGE Dewayne Fiocco's (19/11/10) LULHAM Marc Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MAEA John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MANU Harley MANU Jeremia Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MANU John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MANUEL Jardine MASON Terence MATENGA Huki MCCRORY Bernard Fiocco's (6/12/20011) McCRORY Jason MEDLAND Dean Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MILLS Stephen Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MORRIS Joseph MURPHY Wayne Fiocco's (19/11/10) NGAMOKI Pita ORLOWSKI David Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PAYNE Drew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PEMBERTON Paul PIRIHI Jade Fiocco's (19/11/10) POTTER Leonard Fiocco's (6/12/20011) RAHARUHI Kiha RAINE Chris REARDON Daniel Fiocco's (19/11/10) ROBINSON Michael Fiocco's (19/11/10) ROWSELL Jason Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SHELFORD Angus Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SMITH James Fiocco's (6/12/20011) STONE Glenn Fiocco's (6/12/20011) TEMAARI Ryan Fiocco's (19/11/10) TEPOHE Nathan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) TEPU Patrick Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) THOMAS Jamie Fiocco's (19/11/10) THOMPSON Stacy Fiocco's (19/11/10) THURSTON Troy Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) TOGIA Sasa TUPAEA Matthew Fiocco's (31/3/11) WALKER Stephen Fiocco's (22/11/10) WATENE Cory Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WILLIAMSON Stephen WIPERI Jason Fiocco's (12/12/11) DIEHL Armin Fiocco's (19/11/10) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 Personal Appearance filed 25/2/10 BROWNING Paul DAWSON Samual HOWELL Justin CAMPBELL Danny DODSLEY Andrew Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ELBOROUGH Kimley Fiocco's (31/3/11) FIELD Christopher Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) FRASER Laureen FRASER Trevor HAWKINS Stephen Gibson & Gibson (8/9/11) LAMB Gregory Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PARVIN Stephen Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) PLUNKETT Kevin Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) PORTER Mark Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SEABURN Kevin SOMERVILLE Ryan SUTHERLAND Travis TOKI Mitch Fiocco's (19/11/10) WALKER Wayne WEBB Adrian ANDERSON David D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) AYRES Brett D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 19/11/10; 8/9/11) BEETS Bryan BENJAMIN Edmund D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) BENSON Scott D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) BOSCO Adrian D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) BOWER Peter D Schapper (9/12/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) BUSINOSKI Ilija D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) CAMPBELL Rhys D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) CARR Bryne D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) CHEAL John D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) CHRISTENSEN, Ross Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) COBB Brett D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) COOPER Dwanie Fiocco's (19/11/10) DOCKERTY Michael D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) DOHERTY Paul D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) ESDALE Adam GIBBS Ian Gibson & Gibson (24/12/10) GOODALL Darren D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) GORDON-DAVISON Kayne D Schapper (30/11/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) GRECI David D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) HANNAFORD Gareth D Schapper (7/12/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 D Schapper (8/12/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) HARVEY Brian D Schapper (30/11/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) HOWE Ben D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) KENNING Darrell LEACH Gareth D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MACALE David D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MARCINKOWSKI Laurie D Schapper (20/12/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) OLDHAM Scott D Schapper (1/12/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) PEGRUM Brad D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) POON Ryan D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) PRIMROSE Darren Fiocco's (9/12/10) ROACH Greg D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) ROBERTS Jenny D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) ROBERTS Mick D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) SANDERS Jason D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) SELLECK Syd D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) SHEATHER Luke D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) SMITH Nathan D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) SODEN Derek D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) STEPHENSON Tony D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) STONER Andrew D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) SULLIVAN Scott D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) SWAN David D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) TAYLOR John D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) THOMAS Jamie D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) TURNER Robert D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) TWYFORD James D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) VAN ROOYEN Kelly D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) VAN WANROOY Justin D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) WALTERS Steve WILSON Jeff D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) ABBOTT, Bill D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) BLIOKAS, Rob D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) CAKE, Mathew D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) CORBETT, Adam D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) KERR, Brian D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) KOVACESKI, Angel D Schapper (con-14/5/10) Gibson (23/11/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MARAS, John D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) WELSH, Gary WILSON, Michael D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) MARSH, Tony D Schapper (con-14/5/10) (Fiocco's 8/9/11) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 ALLMAN Robert Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ARCARO Murray ARCARO Nicholas Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) ATKINSON Stephen BACON Kenneth Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BAEZ Juan BAEZ Sergio BAIL Jason Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BAILEY Troy DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 BECKER Peter BECKMAN Alan BELL Murray Fiocco's Lawyers DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 BOBOS Carl Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BRENNAN Stephen Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) BRITTAIN Timothy Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) BROOKS Raymond DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 CARMICHAEL James CASTRO Dean Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) CHRISTENSEN Kenneth CLARK Harley CLARK Robert Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) CLEARY James DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 CONNELL Travis Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) CROSIER Andrew DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DODD Peter DONDAS Michael Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DONNELLY Brett DUPLESSIS Johannes EDWARDS David Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) ELPHICK Jeffrey Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) FAUSTINO Victor Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) FERREIRA Jose Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) FRONTE Salvatore Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 GARNIER-BRADLEY Jason Gibson & Gibson (18/3/11) DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 GOODALL Tay Fiocco's (19/11/10) GROTH William HAKIWAI Stirling HARDINGHAM Adrian Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) HARRIS Ike HEGARTY Steven HOUSE Clayton Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) HUMPHREY David HUNWICK Phillip Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) JARRETT Glenn JOHNS Robert JOHNSTON Anthony Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) KELLY Matthew KINGHORN William KOVACESKA Menka Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) KOVACESKI Donco Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 KRUGER Rodney LANE Darrin LANNIN Bradley LAROSA Agostino Fiocco's (19/11/10) LE CERF Garry LEE Mu Yeun LILLEY Joseph LIM Nao LUDLAM John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MABBOTT Bruce Fiocco's (19/11/10) MacKINNON Graeme MANNERING Peter MARLOW Michael MARTIN James MARTIN Trevor Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) MATEIU Gherge MAXWELL Daniel McCABE Mark McINERNEY John Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MCINERNEY Todd MCKENNA Henry MCKENZIE Alan Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) MCKINNON David MILLER Bradley MILROY Gary Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) MINNS Neil Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) MITCHELL Robert Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) MORLEY Robert NEWSHAM Garry NOBLE Brendan O'SHEA Daniel DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 PERRY Marcus PESTANA Jose PIRIHI Dylan RAZI-PANAH Jarwad RICE Mark RYAN John SANDERS Dean Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SANSOM Gregory Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SCHMITT Gregory DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SHIELD Keith Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SMYTHE Jason SNELLIN Ronald Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) STUURSTRAAT Shannan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SURRIDGE Daniel Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) SVILICICH Lee SWINNEY Antony TAMAPUA Allan TAYLOR Kim TUKUAFU Finau Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 WAIARIKI Paul Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) WALSH John WARNER Paul Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WATTS Priscilla Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WEAVER Blake Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WEAVER Mark Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WEIR Mitchell Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WETERE Tirau Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WOLSKI Daniel Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WOOD Leon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) WOODWARD Sam Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Lional Abrahams Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Lesley Ajaran DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Nathan Arbery Cody Arvidson Mark Ashcroft Adrian Baillie Jonathan Barclay Kenneth Barclay Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Stephen Barnett Rolando Bazaez Louis Beaunoir Jason Behncke Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Jan Bennett Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Troy Benton Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Arjun Bhoi Fiocco's (31/3/11) Nitin Bhosale Marcel Biggar Francis Blampied Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Tommy Bonke Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Benjamin Boocock Nathan Bosworth DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Christian Brekalo Nick Brekalo Andrew Brennan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Christopher Browne Gabriel Bruno Marcus Burke Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Craig Cameron Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Dean Cassidy Hasan Ceric Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Tony Chipchase Juho Choi Clinton Chrisp John Dewar, Crisp Hudson & Mann (17/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Jye Coleman Fiocco's Lawers (7/9/11) Dean Collins Andrew Collinson Collis James DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 John Coutts Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Mark Coverly Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Joshua Cruice Fiocco's (19/11/10) Alfredo Da Silva Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Trevor Datson Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Brian Davies Jeffrey Davis Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Gerrit De Blanken Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) James De Bruin Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Beau Deverall Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Claude Devos Manuel Dias Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Radwan Eltchelebi Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Discontinued 31/08/11 Personal appearance (18+19/11/10) Mark Fleay Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Craig Fleming In Person (5/4/11) Katie Forbes Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Terrence Fox Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Jason Francis Michael Franke Fiocco's (19/11/10) Damien Freeth John Frino Fiocco's (19/11/10) Steven Gaby Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 David Gera Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Paul Gnech Shaun Goldstone Anthony Gostlow DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Phillip Grevell Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Roger Griffiths Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Michael Hagan Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Adrian Hage DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Peter Harris Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 John Heckscher Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Geoffrey Height Todd Heron Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Marcelene Heslop Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Graeme Hocking Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Peter Hoek Andrew Holden DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Sean Hoskins Steven Hossack Harold Houghton Mervyn Houghton DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 David Hull Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Joshua Humphries Glenn Hutton Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Elias Israel Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Sergio Jacobs Paul Jean-Pierre Craig Jeffs John Jenkins Kenneth Johnstone Mark Jones Gibson & Gibson (3/12/10) Ray Jones Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Robert Jones Fabian Joule Edan Kennedy Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) Stuart (Alvin) Kerrigan Nigel Kiedo Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Discontinued 31/08/11 Personal appearance (15/11/10) Travis Ladhams Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Peter Law Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Paul Leach Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Chong-Won Lee DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Mark Lindsay Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Shannon Livingstone Jason Lockhart Gibson & Gibson - (3/12/10 and 18/1/11) Stephen Lowther Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) William Lyall Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Donald MacKay Brett Mackie Gerarado Magtalas Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Simeon Magtalas Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Thomas Mahar Matthew Manning DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Garry Mansfield DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Calvin Martin Andrew Mazlin Adam McAnany Discontinued 05/09/11 C Garvey sol (15/11/10) ceased (24/3/11) Gary McCarthy Shane McClure Ian McCracken Matthew McGurgan Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Wayne McMahon DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Spencer Meade Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Alan Middleton Simon Mieschbuehler Kane Mita Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Charles Mitchell DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Erwin Montiere Nicholas Morley Steven Mott Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Steven Moxon Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Len Mudri Ian Mullan DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Christopher Murray Michael Narbey DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Stuart Noakes Gregory Norris Stephen Novack Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Thomas O'Brien Luke O'Fee Damien O'Kane Russel Olsen Martin Osborne Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Robert Osbourne Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Pavo Parad Trevor Park DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Graeme Penglase Mark Pertile Robert Peters Sotha Pheng Aaron Phyland Fiocco's (19/11/10) David Pidgeon Robert Pippia Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Murray Porter DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Matthew Ramage Gibson & Gibson Daniel Reddie Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Ronald Robinson Wayne Roelandts Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Phillip Rowell Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Steven Sakic Jin (Fred) Sang-Yoo Gibson & Gibson (3/12/10) Ivan Sapina Michael Schoeman Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Dimitru Serban Yong Shao Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Denny Singleton DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Charles Snyman Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Kevin Squibb Ralph Stapelfeldt Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Gary Stramare Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Clive Sucks Steven Sulenta Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Steven Tarran Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Gary Taylor Joseph Taylor Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Allan Thompson Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Bradley Thompson Christopher Thornhill Neil Tollison Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) Alberto Tome Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Brett Tooby Andre Turner Mark Tutton Brendan Tye Colin Tyrer Peter Ugle Johnny Van Wyk Arnoldus Van Wyke Adrian Vandersluis Darryl Vickers Joel Von Nida Noel Webster Dean Weiss DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Drew Wickenden DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Gabriel Williams Gregory Williams Henry Wynkwaardt Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Noel Zanetti Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Matthew Zonta Gibson &Gibson (19/7/11) Pero Zuvela Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Michael Abelha Richard Alcott David Ali Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Noel Amari Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Ryan Augustus Mark Bailey Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) David Baines Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Fred Baker Fiocco's (19/11/10) Reyon Band Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Antony Barlow Fiocco's (19/11/10) DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 Todd Bartlett Laurence Bascombe Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) John Basso Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Mark Bateman Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Richard Bauer Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) John Bernard Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Craig Berry Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Morgan Blake Ellen Bolton Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) (19/11/10) Slobodan Brakus Benjamin Brand Fiocco's (31/3/11) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Tyrone Briffa DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Ivaso Buac Ben Burns Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Ian Byrne Iain Calder Fiocco's (19/11/10) Aaron Calley Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Ross Cameron Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Les Camilleri Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Luke Cashman Damien Chant Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Michael Christensen DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Paul Cole DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Anthony Cooper Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Jason Cornwell Clyde Cowley Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Michael Crook Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Graeme Daniel Mathias Dann DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Andrew Davies Kevin Davis Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Joe De Faria Matthew De Glanville Fiocco's (19/11/10) Chad De Rooy DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Wade Den Ridder Fiocco's (19/11/10) Matthew Denton Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Daniele Dimasi Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Arnolda Do Carmo Andrew Dobson DISCONTINUED 16/02/11 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Roland Edwards DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Gibson & Gibson (8/4/10) Cameron Ewart Bud Feenstra Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Miroslav Ferluga Paulo Fernandes Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Tristan Fuller Andrew Gaffney Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Graeme Geddes Peter Geisner Nicholas George Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Guiseppe Giglia Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Chris Gillen Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Craig Goold DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Ian Grace Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Joseph Green Phillip Green Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Andrew Greene Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Paul Grgurovic Gibson & Gibson - 23/11/10 Mark Haak Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) David Hacking Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Gabriel Halkyard Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Steven Hall Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Lyncon Halligan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Cy Hamilton Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Chris Hancock Jarrid Harrison Fiocco's (19/11/10) Greg Hatchett Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Jarrad Hawkins Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Luke Heaney DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Malcolm Herring DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Nathan Hicks Ben Hodkinson Fiocco's (19/11/10) Tim Holdsworth Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Craig Holst Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Karatehana Horo Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Kevin Howat Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Vince Howes Tyrone Hoys Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Gavin Hughes Victor Hugo Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Paul Hulbert Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Mark Huyshe Fiocco's (19/11/10) and (29/11/10) Jamie Ingie Norman Jamieson DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 Michelle Jeremiah Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Ashley Jones Bodhi Jones Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Martin Jones DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Savo Katic Gibson & Gibson (3/12/10) Kosta Katsidis Gibson & Gibson (18/1/11) James Keene Paul Kelly Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) David Kemp Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) Joshua Klynsoon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Milan Krstanoski Tonganu Kukutai Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Nathan Lake Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Daniel Lawrence Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Jeffrey Lawson Shane Leworthy Fiocco's (19/11/10) Robin Lilly Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Charles Liness Gibson & Gibson - 23/11/10 William Logan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Christopher Luta Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Jason MacDonald Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Callum Malloch-Smith Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Cleopas Mashuta Craig Maxwell Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Dean McBride Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Craig McCartney Charles McClellan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Duncan McDonald Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Ian McDonald Nicole McGinty Allan McKinnon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Ross McMiles Alan McMillan Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Kenneth Mendoza DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Charles Miller Fiocco's (31/3/11) Phillip Millington Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Benjamin Morcom Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Matthew Morehu Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Jeremi Musulin Glen Neal Fiocco's (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Tim Nelson Fiocco's (19/11/10) Justin Noakes Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Nowak Woyciech Aurelio Nunes Ashley O'Brien Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Tim Ogden Mao Ouk Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) David Ovens Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Ben Penglase Joel Penglase Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Ashley Pickles Fiocco's Lawyers Darryl Pickles Ryan Pickles Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) John Pratt Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) John Preston Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Colin Price Curtis Ransfield Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Gerald Ransfield Steven Reid Glen Robinson Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Paul Roche Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Rodrigo Ruiz Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Joseph Ryder Grgo Saric Moreno Serramono Jose Simoes Kenneth Simon Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Todd Sitnikoski Shelby Skinner Hamish Smith Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Mark Smith DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Kurt Stellenburg Andrew Stevens Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Selina Stolp Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Wayne Sutherland Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) James Taylor Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Jeremy Teaia Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Shane Thomas Fiocco's (19/11/10) Leslie Thompson Paul Todd Fiocco's (22/12/10) Karl Travers Fiocco's (22/12/10) Joshua Trunfio Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Herbert Tucker Angela Tumney DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Matthew Uepa Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Raul Uriona Fiocco's (19/11/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Andrea Vaega Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Christopher Van Arkel Fiocco's (19/11/10) Liam Wakefield Fiocco's (19/11/10) Michael Walker Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Alan Walker Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Simon Wallace Steve Waltl Gibson & Gibson (23/11/10) DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 Rodney Williams Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Jason Wilson Daryl Wood John Wyllie Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) Tyron Youlden DISCONTINUED 22/11/10 Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Matthew Young DISCONTINUED 18/05/10 James Zauch Charles Bell Gibson & Gibson (con-28/5/10) Richard D'Costa Jarrad Garrick Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) James Odlam Gibson & Gibson (6/12/2011) Colin Searle Joe Silk Fiocco's (con-11/5/10) 1460 1522 DISCONTINUED 18/05/10