Darroch, H.J. & Ors v Tanner, L.J. [1987] FCA 483

Darroch, H.J. & Ors v Tanner, L.J. [1987] FCA 483

The expenditure of union funds for electioneering during the conduct of an election was unauthorised regardless of the subjective intention of the appellants; s.141(1G) does not empower the Federal Court to order repayment of moneys expended for a past breach where there is no ongoing obligation under the union rules.

Parties
Appellant: H.Jd. DARROCH; Appellant: J.P. MAYNES; Appellant: K.Y. HARVEY; Appellant: M.J. O'SULLIVAN; Appellant: H. ARMSTRONG; Respondent: LINDSAY JAMES TANNER
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Federal Court, Full Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Registered Organizations, Union Funds, Electioneering, Performance of Union Rules, Lawful Authority
Industrial Law Registered Organizations Union Funds Electioneering Performance of Union Rules Lawful Authority

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.Jd. DARROCH

Appellant

J.P. MAYNES

Appellant

K.Y. HARVEY

Appellant

M.J. O'SULLIVAN

Appellant

H. ARMSTRONG

Appellant

LINDSAY JAMES TANNER

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Federal Court, Full Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had power under union rules to authorise expenditure for electioneering material during an election.
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court could make orders under s.141(1G) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 requiring repayment of moneys expended without lawful authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The expenditure of union funds for electioneering during the conduct of an election was unauthorised regardless of the subjective intention of the appellants; s.141(1G) does not empower the Federal Court to order repayment of moneys expended for a past breach where there is no ongoing obligation under the union rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Orders 1(b) and 2 of judgment made on 19 December 1986 set aside
  • Otherwise, orders affirmed