maccas update - day 18

Last week the National Union of Workers provided
their blockade bbq to cook up breakfast for community
members protesting on site.

I attended parts of the Supreme Court Hearing today, where McDonalds Australia Ltd sought an injunction to restrain named defendants, a number of community members who have been protesting at the McDonalds Tecoma site.

After unsuccessfully seeking an adjournment, the matter was heard by Supreme Court Justice Kyrou. 

In summing up the reasons for granting an injunction order Supreme Court Justice Kyrou said he was granting a temporary order that strikes a balance as some aspects of the terms sought by the Plaintiff (McDonalds) were too wide.

Justice Kyrou defined the areas that the named defendants are not permitted to enter or remain in relation to the site on Burwood Highway. He said the order was limited to those who entered the McDonalds property between 1-17/7/13 and ascended the roof and those who wrongly interfered with the access of workers.

He went on to describe the areas that the order pertained to, which referred to a map supplied by the Plaintiff, I do not have a copy of the map but it is my understanding that these areas include the McDonalds land, the adjoining vacant lot, the footpath to the front of the site (the temporary one) as the evidence suggests that entry and egress to the site occurred from the footpath. Burwood Hwy cannot be accessed for the purpose of doing anything prohibited. There was also discussion on the carriageway easements, however I don't have clarity as yet on this element of the order.  

There are also a number of other conditions regarding conduct and preventing the throwing of articles to the land.

Justice Kyrou acknowledged he had only heard one side of the story and has granted the temporary injunction till 4pm 1 August, 2013, when the case will resume allowing defendants the opportunity to put their side of the story and where the matter of costs sought by McDonalds will be covered as well.

In explaining his reasons Justice Kyrou said that elements of the request made by the Plaintiff caused some difficulty because of the need to balance the right to peacefully protest and the rights of the owner of the land and that it was not his intention to stifle legitimate community debate. He also confirmed that statements made on websites or in conversations against the development would not infringe this order.

The matter will resume at 10:30am on the 1st August, 2013 in the Supreme Court.

Here's a couple of stories from today's Age and the Herald Sun.

(please note this blog entry is a recollection of the time I attended the hearing, it is not legal advice, nor should it be read as such)