Freda Bogar v George Campbell & Brian Fraser [1995] IRCA 622

Freda Bogar v George Campbell & Brian Fraser [1995] IRCA 622

The Matthews and Goyen letters together amounted to electioneering material, but the applicant was not denied equal opportunity to use Union resources. She received a pre-publication copy of the journal, knew the journal was urgent and to be reprinted, had sufficient time to identify her objections and formulate a reply before reprinting, and the evidence showed that a timely reply would have been published. Accordingly, no breach warranting orders under s.209 was established and the application was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.209 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 for a Rule to Show Cause and Interim Orders / Final Determination After Urgent Hearing; Reasons Given After Orders Made
Outcome
Application refused; interim orders discharged.
Legal Topics
['union Elections' 'use of Union Resources for Electioneering' 'rule to Show Cause' 'interim Orders']
['industrial Law'] ['union Elections' 'use of Union Resources for Electioneering' 'rule to Show Cause' 'interim Orders']

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.209 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 for a Rule to Show Cause and Interim Orders / Final Determination After Urgent Hearing; Reasons Given After Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Matthews and Goyen letters published in the Union journal were electioneering material.' 'Whether the applicant was denied an opportunity available to others to use Union resources for electioneering.' 'Whether the Court should exercise any discretion under s.209 if a breach of the rules were found.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Matthews and Goyen letters together amounted to electioneering material, but the applicant was not denied equal opportunity to use Union resources. She received a pre-publication copy of the journal, knew the journal was urgent and to be reprinted, had sufficient time to identify her objections and formulate a reply before reprinting, and the evidence showed that a timely reply would have been published. Accordingly, no breach warranting orders under s.209 was established and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused; interim orders discharged.

Orders

  • ['The application for a rule to show cause made on 9 October 1995 be refused.' 'Paragraph 1 of the interim orders made by Justice Gray on 9 October 1995 and the order made by Justice North on 11 October 1995 be discharged.']