Kayne, Ivan v Banks, John Francis & Ors Croyston, John Frederick v Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association & Anor [1978] FCA 92

Kayne, Ivan v Banks, John Francis & Ors Croyston, John Frederick v Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association & Anor [1978] FCA 92

The alterations to the rules of the Association were not made in accordance with the procedures laid down by its own rules, and thus were invalid; however, the Court, exercising its discretion under s.171C of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, validated the alterations from 17 September 1976 (for election of federal officers) and from 1 December 1976 (for election of branch delegates), as no substantial injustice would result.

Parties
Claimant: Sivan Kayne; Respondent: John Francis Banks; Respondent: Ronald Joseph Minogue; Respondent: Robert John Care-Wickham; Respondent: William Gibbs; Respondent: Michael Cosby; Respondent: Francis Lee; Respondent: B. Fuller; Respondent: Adrian Brennan; Respondent: Roger Catchpoole; Respondent: David Hawkes; Respondent: David Stuart-Wright; Respondent: Rosemary Darragh; Respondent: John Quinn; Respondent: John Garton; Respondent: Edward Reynolds; Respondent: Elizabeth Fell; Respondent: Thomas Molomby; Claimant: John Frederick Croyston; Respondent: Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association; Respondent: Ivan Kayne
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1978
Procedural Posture
Applications for Relief Concerning Rules Alteration in an Organisation Under Industrial Law / Final Judgment
Outcome
Alterations to the rules were found to be invalid, but the Court exercised discretion to validate them from specific dates; rule nisi discharged; liberty to apply granted.
Legal Topics
Validity of Alterations to Rules of an Organization, Interpretation of Organization Rules, Compliance With Procedural Rules for Rule Changes, Validation of Invalid Rules Alterations, Effect of Certificate of Industrial Registrar
Industrial Law Validity of Alterations to Rules of an Organization Interpretation of Organization Rules Compliance With Procedural Rules for Rule Changes Validation of Invalid Rules Alterations Effect of Certificate of Industrial Registrar

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sivan Kayne

Claimant

John Francis Banks

Respondent

Ronald Joseph Minogue

Respondent

Robert John Care-Wickham

Respondent

William Gibbs

Respondent

Michael Cosby

Respondent

Francis Lee

Respondent

B. Fuller

Respondent

Adrian Brennan

Respondent

Roger Catchpoole

Respondent

David Hawkes

Respondent

David Stuart-Wright

Respondent

Rosemary Darragh

Respondent

John Quinn

Respondent

John Garton

Respondent

Edward Reynolds

Respondent

Elizabeth Fell

Respondent

Thomas Molomby

Respondent

John Frederick Croyston

Claimant

Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association

Respondent

Ivan Kayne

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Relief Concerning Rules Alteration in an Organisation Under Industrial Law / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alterations to the rules of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association were made in accordance with the relevant procedures as laid down by its rules
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Registrar's certificate under s.139(4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act validates non-compliant rule alterations
  3. 3 Whether the Court should validate the rules alterations that were made invalidly under s.171C of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The alterations to the rules of the Association were not made in accordance with the procedures laid down by its own rules, and thus were invalid; however, the Court, exercising its discretion under s.171C of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, validated the alterations from 17 September 1976 (for election of federal officers) and from 1 December 1976 (for election of branch delegates), as no substantial injustice would result.

Court Disposition

Alterations to the rules were found to be invalid, but the Court exercised discretion to validate them from specific dates; rule nisi discharged; liberty to apply granted.

Orders

  • Rule Nisi discharged (Matter V No. 11 of 1978)
  • Declaration that an invalidity occurred in the making/alteration of Rules 3A, 9A, 14, 15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 36A, 37, and 39 of the Association