Lawrence, J.L. v Porter, B. & Ors [1987] FCA 458

Lawrence, J.L. v Porter, B. & Ors [1987] FCA 458

The Federal Council’s actions to amend the rules and pursue ACTU affiliation, including the use of a postal ballot, did not contravene the rules of the Australian Journalists Association or the requirements of the Act. Earlier plebiscites did not fetter the Council’s powers, and Council members’ acquiescence constituted sufficient waiver of notice requirements for urgent business. The applicant failed to show that the rules were oppressive, unreasonable, unjust or in breach of the regulations.

Parties
Applicant: John Lockwood Lawrence; First Respondent: Barry Porter; Second Respondent: Jane Singleton; Third Respondent: Brendan Donohoe; Fourth Respondent: Christopher Warren; Fifth Respondent: Catriona Wilson; Sixth Respondent: Pat O'Donnell; Seventh Respondent: Wayne Watson; Eighth Respondent: John Brittle; Ninth Respondent: Norman Taylor; Tenth Respondent: Richard Scherer; Eleventh Respondent: Tom Barrass; Twelfth Respondent: Adrian Wild; Thirteenth Respondent: Neal Swancott; Fourteenth Respondent: Gavin Cantlon; Fifteenth Respondent: Brad Turner; Sixteenth Respondent: Katrina Willis; Seventeenth Respondent: Gail Luxford; Eighteenth Respondent: Lindsay Foyle; Nineteenth Respondent: Geoffrey Hughes; Twentieth Respondent: Bob Beatty; Twenty First Respondent: Rada Rouse; Twenty Second Respondent: David Halpin; Twenty Third Respondent: Liz Fell; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Mark Camm; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Richard McGregor; Twenty Sixth Respondent: Bill Preece; Twenty Seventh Respondent: Michael Sutherland; Twenty Eighth Respondent: Ray Frawley; Twenty Ninth Respondent: Lachlan McDonald; Thirtieth Respondent: Anne-Marie Strickland; Thirty First Respondent: Gavin Whyte; Thirty Second Respondent: Agnes Warren; Thirty Third Respondent: Susan Peak; Thirty Fourth Respondent: Kevin Grover; Thirty Fifth Respondent: Margaret Simons; Thirty Sixth Respondent: Duncan Clarke; Thirty Seventh Respondent: Norm Harridien; Thirty Eighth Respondent: Liz Allen; Thirty Ninth Respondent: Arthur Corrie; Fortieth Respondent: Des Driberg; Forty First Respondent: Barton Green; Forty Second Respondent: William Rust; Forty Third Respondent: Julie Duncan; Forty Fourth Respondent: Peter Baker; Forty Fifth Respondent: Richard Creswick; Forty Sixth Respondent: Anne Giles; Forty Seventh Respondent: Genine Read; Forty Eighth Respondent: Jerry Maher; Forty Ninth Respondent: Paul Lewar; Fiftieth Respondent: Will Atkins; Fifty First Respondent: Maxwell Watson; Fifty Second Respondent: Charles Phillips; Fifty Third Respondent: The Australian Journalists Association
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 1987
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, Ss.140, 141 / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Affiliation With ACTU, Right to Plebiscite, Interpretation of Association Rules, Validity of Postal Ballot, Oppression Under S.140

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lockwood Lawrence

Applicant

Barry Porter

First Respondent

Jane Singleton

Second Respondent

Brendan Donohoe

Third Respondent

Christopher Warren

Fourth Respondent

Catriona Wilson

Fifth Respondent

Pat O'Donnell

Sixth Respondent

Wayne Watson

Seventh Respondent

John Brittle

Eighth Respondent

Norman Taylor

Ninth Respondent

Richard Scherer

Tenth Respondent

Tom Barrass

Eleventh Respondent

Adrian Wild

Twelfth Respondent

Neal Swancott

Thirteenth Respondent

Gavin Cantlon

Fourteenth Respondent

Brad Turner

Fifteenth Respondent

Katrina Willis

Sixteenth Respondent

Gail Luxford

Seventeenth Respondent

Lindsay Foyle

Eighteenth Respondent

Geoffrey Hughes

Nineteenth Respondent

Bob Beatty

Twentieth Respondent

Rada Rouse

Twenty First Respondent

David Halpin

Twenty Second Respondent

Liz Fell

Twenty Third Respondent

Mark Camm

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Richard McGregor

Twenty Fifth Respondent

Bill Preece

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Michael Sutherland

Twenty Seventh Respondent

Ray Frawley

Twenty Eighth Respondent

Lachlan McDonald

Twenty Ninth Respondent

Anne-Marie Strickland

Thirtieth Respondent

Gavin Whyte

Thirty First Respondent

Agnes Warren

Thirty Second Respondent

Susan Peak

Thirty Third Respondent

Kevin Grover

Thirty Fourth Respondent

Margaret Simons

Thirty Fifth Respondent

Duncan Clarke

Thirty Sixth Respondent

Norm Harridien

Thirty Seventh Respondent

Liz Allen

Thirty Eighth Respondent

Arthur Corrie

Thirty Ninth Respondent

Des Driberg

Fortieth Respondent

Barton Green

Forty First Respondent

William Rust

Forty Second Respondent

Julie Duncan

Forty Third Respondent

Peter Baker

Forty Fourth Respondent

Richard Creswick

Forty Fifth Respondent

Anne Giles

Forty Sixth Respondent

Genine Read

Forty Seventh Respondent

Jerry Maher

Forty Eighth Respondent

Paul Lewar

Forty Ninth Respondent

Will Atkins

Fiftieth Respondent

Maxwell Watson

Fifty First Respondent

Charles Phillips

Fifty Second Respondent

The Australian Journalists Association

Fifty Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, Ss.140, 141 / Final Judgment at First Instance

  1. 1 Whether the proposal to affiliate with ACTU was in breach of AJA rules
  2. 2 Whether the rules or the amendment to allow affiliation were oppressive, unreasonable or unjust under s.140
  3. 3 Whether earlier plebiscites prevent Council action

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Council’s actions to amend the rules and pursue ACTU affiliation, including the use of a postal ballot, did not contravene the rules of the Australian Journalists Association or the requirements of the Act. Earlier plebiscites did not fetter the Council’s powers, and Council members’ acquiescence constituted sufficient waiver of notice requirements for urgent business. The applicant failed to show that the rules were oppressive, unreasonable, unjust or in breach of the regulations.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • That the amended rule nisi be discharged.
  • That the interim orders made by the Full Court on 20 May 1987 restraining the respondents from taking any step to prosecute the AJA's affiliation application, be discharged.