Troja, F. v Bird, A. & Ors [1985] FCA 641

Troja, F. v Bird, A. & Ors [1985] FCA 641

The committee of management validly exercised the power to impose a levy under rule 8, allowing for recurring levies linked to the half-yearly period. The resolution of 22nd May 1984 was not an attempt to improperly raise contributions beyond their permissible maximum. Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 does not support an order for return of monies based on implied terms.

Parties
Applicant: F. Troja; Respondent: A. Bird; Respondent: J. Brunt; Respondent: W. Curran; Respondent: M. McPike; Respondent: L. Stanley; Respondent: R. Dillon; Respondent: N. McDonald; Respondent: W. Christensen; Respondent: L. McDonald; Respondent: J. Bonello; Respondent: G. Gardiner; Respondent: P. Davey; Respondent: J. Murrowood; Respondent: J. MacDonald; Respondent: D. Dougan; Respondent: J. Kondartos; Respondent: W. Bygate; Respondent: K. Bird; Respondent: A. James; Respondent: A. Loughrun; Respondent: N. Green; Respondent: K. Andrews; Respondent: P. Cook; Respondent: A. Gatt; Respondent: N. Matyevich; Respondent: E. Helman; Respondent: S. Fields; Respondent: G. Coulter; Respondent: W. Jennings; Respondent: P. Crocker; Respondent: N. Petch; Respondent: D. Doherty; Respondent: T. Devis; Respondent: J. Flynn; Respondent: W. Morrow; Respondent: P. Blasby
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Rule to Show Cause Application / Judgment/order
Outcome
Rule to Show Cause discharged
Legal Topics
Registered Organizations, Union Rules, Imposition of Levy, Interpretation of Rules
Industrial Law Registered Organizations Union Rules Imposition of Levy Interpretation of Rules

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. Troja

Applicant

A. Bird

Respondent

J. Brunt

Respondent

W. Curran

Respondent

M. McPike

Respondent

L. Stanley

Respondent

R. Dillon

Respondent

N. McDonald

Respondent

W. Christensen

Respondent

L. McDonald

Respondent

J. Bonello

Respondent

G. Gardiner

Respondent

P. Davey

Respondent

J. Murrowood

Respondent

J. MacDonald

Respondent

D. Dougan

Respondent

J. Kondartos

Respondent

W. Bygate

Respondent

K. Bird

Respondent

A. James

Respondent

A. Loughrun

Respondent

N. Green

Respondent

K. Andrews

Respondent

P. Cook

Respondent

A. Gatt

Respondent

N. Matyevich

Respondent

E. Helman

Respondent

S. Fields

Respondent

G. Coulter

Respondent

W. Jennings

Respondent

P. Crocker

Respondent

N. Petch

Respondent

D. Doherty

Respondent

T. Devis

Respondent

J. Flynn

Respondent

W. Morrow

Respondent

P. Blasby

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rule to Show Cause Application / Judgment/order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committee of management validly imposed a levy under Union rules
  2. 2 Construction and operation of rules relating to levies and contributions
  3. 3 Whether implied terms can arise in the rules of a registered organization under s.141 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The committee of management validly exercised the power to impose a levy under rule 8, allowing for recurring levies linked to the half-yearly period. The resolution of 22nd May 1984 was not an attempt to improperly raise contributions beyond their permissible maximum. Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 does not support an order for return of monies based on implied terms.

Court Disposition

Rule to Show Cause discharged

Orders

  • The Rule to Show Cause is discharged