Lewis, B.L. & Ors Maynes, J.P. [1988] FCA 366

Lewis, B.L. & Ors Maynes, J.P. [1988] FCA 366

The Court had no jurisdiction or power to make the order sought because the respondent was no longer one of the officers authorised by the Victorian Branch rules to sign withdrawals, had no power under the rules to direct the bank, and an obligation not to hinder the officers did not imply a positive obligation to sign a bank authority that the rules did not require or enable him to sign. The dispute was in substance between the Branch and the bank. Costs were refused because, having regard to the rule to show cause having been granted and the prior order in Mapstone v Thornton, the proceeding could not be said to have been instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 by Rule to Show Cause Seeking Directions for Observance of Union Rules / Preliminary Objection to Competency and Jurisdiction at First Directions Hearing
Outcome
Rule to show cause discharged; request for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['orders for Performance or Observance of Registered Organisation Rules' 'union Office Bearers and Bank Account Signatories' 'interim Orders' 'jurisdiction Under S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904' 'costs Where Proceedings Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction']
['industrial Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['orders for Performance or Observance of Registered Organisation Rules' 'union Office Bearers and Bank Account Signatories' 'interim Orders' 'jurisdiction Under S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904' 'costs Where Proceedings Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 by Rule to Show Cause Seeking Directions for Observance of Union Rules / Preliminary Objection to Competency and Jurisdiction at First Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction or power under s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 to order the respondent to sign a bank authority so that the applicants could operate Victorian Branch bank accounts.' "Whether the respondent's refusal to sign the authority amounted to a refusal to recognise the applicants as officers or a breach of an obligation to do acts conducive to observance of the union rules." "Whether the applicants should pay the respondent's costs on the basis that the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had no jurisdiction or power to make the order sought because the respondent was no longer one of the officers authorised by the Victorian Branch rules to sign withdrawals, had no power under the rules to direct the bank, and an obligation not to hinder the officers did not imply a positive obligation to sign a bank authority that the rules did not require or enable him to sign. The dispute was in substance between the Branch and the bank. Costs were refused because, having regard to the rule to show cause having been granted and the prior order in Mapstone v Thornton, the proceeding could not be said to have been instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause.

Court Disposition

Rule to show cause discharged; request for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The rule to show cause be discharged.']