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.
|Last week the National Union of Workers provided|
their blockade bbq to cook up breakfast for community
members protesting on site.
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.
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)
Labels: cr samantha dunn, mcdonalds, tecoma, yarra ranges