Re Applications for Election Inquiries in the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia [1978] FCA 66

Re Applications for Election Inquiries in the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia [1978] FCA 66

The applicants failed to satisfy the requirement that they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged irregularity within six months of the elections; mere absence of action or thought about a potential challenge within that period does not meet the threshold of reasonable diligence required...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Kevin James Allen; Applicant: Garry Ernest Sherriff; Respondent: L. C. Townsend; Respondent: J. K. Sandilands
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 1978
Procedural Posture
Application for Election Inquiry / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Admissibility
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Election Irregularity, Registered Organisations, Validity of Union Rules, Reasonable Diligence, Declarations as to Invalidity of Rules
Industrial Law Election Irregularity Registered Organisations Validity of Union Rules Reasonable Diligence Declarations as to Invalidity of Rules

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin James Allen

Applicant

Garry Ernest Sherriff

Applicant

L. C. Townsend

Respondent

J. K. Sandilands

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Election Inquiry / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an irregularity in the elections of the Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation of Australia due to the application of invalid union rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants could, by reasonable diligence, have acquired knowledge of the alleged irregularities within six months of the elections.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to satisfy the requirement that they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged irregularity within six months of the elections; mere absence of action or thought about a potential challenge within that period does not meet the threshold of reasonable diligence required by s.159(5) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Furthermore, the returning officer’s references to valid rules in notices were not irregularities in themselves, as any misapprehension by members stemmed from the presence of invalid rules in the rulebook rather than from any improper act by the returning officer.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • The applications herein be dismissed.