King v Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 616

King v Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 616

The application had to be struck out because the applicant could not show a continuing obligation under the respondent's rules capable of supporting directions under s 209, could not establish that r 49 applied where there was no evidence he was elected to the position and he was not employed full time in the service of the Divisional Branch, and brought no viable case that termination of his employment in June 1998 was removal from office rather than termination of employment. As the application must fail, there was no basis to allow the proposed amendment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application for Directions Under S 209 of the Workplace Relations Act (1996) (cth) Concerning Observance of Union Rules / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Strike Out or Summarily Dismiss the Application; Applicant's Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend
Outcome
Respondent's notice of motion allowed; applicant's application struck out; applicant's notice of motion for leave to amend refused.
Legal Topics
['union Rules' 'directions for Performance or Observance of Rules' 'strike Out or Summary Dismissal' 'continuing Obligation' 'removal From Office' 'leave to Amend']
['industrial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['union Rules' 'directions for Performance or Observance of Rules' 'strike Out or Summary Dismissal' 'continuing Obligation' 'removal From Office' 'leave to Amend']

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

Industrial Law Application for Directions Under S 209 of the Workplace Relations Act (1996) (cth) Concerning Observance of Union Rules / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Strike Out or Summarily Dismiss the Application; Applicant's Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's s 209 application should be struck out because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was frivolous or vexatious." "Whether there was a continuing obligation under the respondent's rules capable of supporting directions under s 209 of the Workplace Relations Act (1996) (Cth)." "Whether termination of the applicant's employment constituted removal from office under the respondent's rules." 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application had to be struck out because the applicant could not show a continuing obligation under the respondent's rules capable of supporting directions under s 209, could not establish that r 49 applied where there was no evidence he was elected to the position and he was not employed full time in the service of the Divisional Branch, and brought no viable case that termination of his employment in June 1998 was removal from office rather than termination of employment. As the application must fail, there was no basis to allow the proposed amendment.

Court Disposition

Respondent's notice of motion allowed; applicant's application struck out; applicant's notice of motion for leave to amend refused.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's notice of motion filed on 20 April 2000 be allowed." "The applicant's application dated 1 September 1999 be struck out." "The applicant's notice of motion dated 2 February 2000 for leave to amend his application be refused."]