Roberts, J.T. v B.W.I.U. of Australia & Anor [1987] FCA 60

Roberts, J.T. v B.W.I.U. of Australia & Anor [1987] FCA 60

Claims under paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the application raise at least arguable issues and should not be struck out at this stage, as the applicant's entitlement to membership and lawfulness of the $10,000 condition under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 are not clearly unarguable. However, the claim alleging breach of s. 141 (first paragraph numbered 5) and the claim (paragraph 6) against the second respondent must be dismissed as not properly brought or not raising a sustainable cause of action.

Parties
Applicant: John Thomas Roberts; First Respondent: The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia; Second Respondent: Don McDonald
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Application (industrial Law) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claims/order for Dismissal
Outcome
Partial grant/partial dismissal of notice of motion to strike out claims; some claims dismissed, others allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Proceedings, Union Membership, Pleading Requirements, Jurisdiction to Determine Membership Disputes
Industrial Law Practice and Procedure Striking Out Proceedings Union Membership Pleading Requirements Jurisdiction to Determine Membership Disputes

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Thomas Roberts

Applicant

The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia

First Respondent

Don McDonald

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application (industrial Law) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claims/order for Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has power to strike out proceedings where no cause of action/justiciable issue is disclosed in the absence of pleadings
  2. 2 Whether applicant has an arguable case under s. 144 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 regarding union membership eligibility
  3. 3 Whether originating process properly commenced where claims under ss. 140 and 141 Conciliation and Arbitration Act are made

Ratio Decidendi

Claims under paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the application raise at least arguable issues and should not be struck out at this stage, as the applicant's entitlement to membership and lawfulness of the $10,000 condition under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 are not clearly unarguable. However, the claim alleging breach of s. 141 (first paragraph numbered 5) and the claim (paragraph 6) against the second respondent must be dismissed as not properly brought or not raising a sustainable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Partial grant/partial dismissal of notice of motion to strike out claims; some claims dismissed, others allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • The claim in the first paragraph numbered 5 in the application dated 29th September 1986 is dismissed.
  • The claim against the second respondent the subject of the paragraph numbered 6 in the application is dismissed.