Roots, David Christopher v Mutton, S. & Ors [1978] FCA 15

Roots, David Christopher v Mutton, S. & Ors [1978] FCA 15

The addition of Rule 36(12), under which the applicant was suspended, was not validly adopted because the mandatory procedural requirements for amending Union rules (as set out in Rule 28) were not complied with; therefore, the purported suspension was invalid and the applicant remains entitled to his office.

Parties
Claimant: David Christopher Roots; First Respondent: S. Mutton; First Respondent: G. Smith; First Respondent: T. Bourke; First Respondent: R. Masterson; First Respondent: R. Hevey; First Respondent: F. Fairweather; First Respondent: G. Williams; First Respondent: R. Provan; First Respondent: C. Bignell; First Respondent: R. Nuske; First Respondent: J. Shepherd; First Respondent: A. Horrocks; First Respondent: G.R. Crawford; First Respondent: K. Jowett; Second Respondent: A.F. Heck; Second Respondent: B.F. Burns; Second Respondent: T.J. Bourke; Second Respondent: H.C. Silver; Second Respondent: A.C. Heilbronn; Second Respondent: A.L. Francis; Second Respondent: G.P. Britten; Second Respondent: M.H. Duggan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1978
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (cth) / Return of Order Nisi
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Suspension of Office Bearers, Power to Amend Rules, Procedural Compliance
Industrial Law Union Rules Suspension of Office Bearers Power to Amend Rules Procedural Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Christopher Roots

Claimant

S. Mutton

First Respondent

G. Smith

First Respondent

T. Bourke

First Respondent

R. Masterson

First Respondent

R. Hevey

First Respondent

F. Fairweather

First Respondent

G. Williams

First Respondent

R. Provan

First Respondent

C. Bignell

First Respondent

R. Nuske

First Respondent

J. Shepherd

First Respondent

A. Horrocks

First Respondent

G.R. Crawford

First Respondent

K. Jowett

First Respondent

A.F. Heck

Second Respondent

B.F. Burns

Second Respondent

T.J. Bourke

Second Respondent

H.C. Silver

Second Respondent

A.C. Heilbronn

Second Respondent

A.L. Francis

Second Respondent

G.P. Britten

Second Respondent

M.H. Duggan

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (cth) / Return of Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 36(12) was validly incorporated into the Union’s rules
  2. 2 Whether the applicant’s suspension from office was valid under the Union rules
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements for amending the rules were complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The addition of Rule 36(12), under which the applicant was suspended, was not validly adopted because the mandatory procedural requirements for amending Union rules (as set out in Rule 28) were not complied with; therefore, the purported suspension was invalid and the applicant remains entitled to his office.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The respondents treat as null and void the purported resolution suspending the applicant from office from 1 November 1977 to 31 May 1978.
  • The respondents observe the rules by recognizing the applicant as an elected organizer of the Queensland Branch for the balance of his term.