B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (No 4)
Citation: [2026] FCA 1037
What happened
B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd sought to strike out paragraphs in a defence filed by the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) regarding alleged breaches of the Fair Work Act and the Competition and Consumer Act. The CFMEU had pleaded 'it does not know' in response to B.M.D.'s allegations concerning the attendance of CFMEU officials at a construction site. B.M.D. argued this was an abuse of process, claiming the information needed for a responsive plea was available to the CFMEU. The Federal Court (Meagher J) made orders striking out those paragraphs in February 2026.
What was decided
The Federal Court found that B.M.D.'s argument regarding the CFMEU's pleading was valid and granted the strikeout order. The court determined there would be no order for costs related to B.M.D.’s interlocutory application to strike out the paragraphs. This decision was made based on section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which limits when costs can be awarded in matters arising under the Act. The Court emphasized that this limitation aims to ensure access to justice and discourage litigants from avoiding pursuing legitimate claims.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure their pleadings are clear and specific when making allegations. If a union or other party pleads non-admissions without reasonable grounds, employers may have recourse to seek striking out of those paragraphs. However, be mindful that costs orders are limited by the Fair Work Act and courts will consider access to justice.
What it means for employees
Employees and unions should ensure responses to allegations in legal proceedings are based on available information and not simply a default 'does not know' plea. Unions need to carefully assess their position before pleading non-admissions, as this could lead to costs being awarded against them.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca1037Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →