Rolph, John Charles v Eowlings, Frederick Athol & Anor [1984] FCA 300

Rolph, John Charles v Eowlings, Frederick Athol & Anor [1984] FCA 300

As there was no evidence of any current or threatened failure by the respondents to observe the union rules, and the application concerned events from eight years prior, the applicant had not established a prima facie case for relief under section 141. Further, the elapsed time and the absence of ongoing breach weighed against granting the application.

Parties
Applicant: John Charles Rolph; Respondent: Frederick Athol Rowlings; Respondent: Transport Workers Union of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 1984
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application / Application for Order Nisi Refused; Oral Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Refusal of Order Nisi, Prima Facie Case, Enforcement of Union Rules, Removal of Branch Officer, Natural Justice, Statutory Compliance With Union Rules
Industrial Law Refusal of Order Nisi Prima Facie Case Enforcement of Union Rules Removal of Branch Officer Natural Justice Statutory Compliance With Union 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Charles Rolph

Applicant

Frederick Athol Rowlings

Respondent

Transport Workers Union of Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Application / Application for Order Nisi Refused; Oral Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a prima facie case of existing or threatened failure to observe union rules
  2. 2 Whether rules permitting removal of branch officers are unreasonable, oppressive, or unjust
  3. 3 Whether relief under s 141 is appropriate given lapse of time and absence of current failure to observe rules

Ratio Decidendi

As there was no evidence of any current or threatened failure by the respondents to observe the union rules, and the application concerned events from eight years prior, the applicant had not established a prima facie case for relief under section 141. Further, the elapsed time and the absence of ongoing breach weighed against granting the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application refused
  • Order nisi not issued