Skourdoumbis v Maher [2001] FCA 1922

Skourdoumbis v Maher [2001] FCA 1922

The meeting was not properly convened as an extraordinary meeting because the urgent business required by rule 7(2)(ii) was not clearly established and the agenda contained items which either lacked urgency or were outside the meeting’s jurisdiction; therefore, resolutions passed or to be passed at that meeting are invalid and cannot be given effect.

Parties
Applicant: Leo Skourdoumbis; Respondent: Tony Maher; Respondent: John Sutton; Respondent: Vic Fitzgerald; Respondent: Trevor Smith; Respondent: Albert Littler; Respondent: Reg Coates; Respondent: Bruce Watson; Respondent: Lindsay Fraser; Respondent: Michael O'Connor; Respondent: Chris Northover; Respondent: Kevin Reynolds; Respondent: Alex Bukarica; Respondent: Greg Williams; Respondent: Brad Parker; Respondent: Ed Harris; Respondent: Michael Haritou; Respondent: Michael Mitten; Respondent: Dave Kirner; Respondent: Jim Emery; Respondent: Frank Vari; Respondent: John Maitland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Judgment After Parties Agreed to Treat Interlocutory Application as Final Hearing
Outcome
Injunction granted restraining the passing and enforcement of resolutions at the meeting (with exceptions as to certain respondents). Meeting allowed to continue for discussion only.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Union Rules, Ultra Vires Actions, Meetings of Union Bodies, Jurisdiction of Union Committees
Labour Law Union Law Interpretation of Union Rules Ultra Vires Actions Meetings of Union Bodies Jurisdiction of Union Committees

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leo Skourdoumbis

Applicant

Tony Maher

Respondent

John Sutton

Respondent

Vic Fitzgerald

Respondent

Trevor Smith

Respondent

Albert Littler

Respondent

Reg Coates

Respondent

Bruce Watson

Respondent

Lindsay Fraser

Respondent

Michael O'Connor

Respondent

Chris Northover

Respondent

Kevin Reynolds

Respondent

Alex Bukarica

Respondent

Greg Williams

Respondent

Brad Parker

Respondent

Ed Harris

Respondent

Michael Haritou

Respondent

Michael Mitten

Respondent

Dave Kirner

Respondent

Jim Emery

Respondent

Frank Vari

Respondent

John Maitland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Judgment After Parties Agreed to Treat Interlocutory Application as Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extraordinary meeting of the FFTS Union Divisional Conference was validly convened under the union's rules
  2. 2 Whether certain agenda items could lawfully be considered at such an extraordinary meeting
  3. 3 Whether the Divisional Conference could conduct elections or hear disciplinary charges at an extraordinary meeting

Ratio Decidendi

The meeting was not properly convened as an extraordinary meeting because the urgent business required by rule 7(2)(ii) was not clearly established and the agenda contained items which either lacked urgency or were outside the meeting’s jurisdiction; therefore, resolutions passed or to be passed at that meeting are invalid and cannot be given effect.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted restraining the passing and enforcement of resolutions at the meeting (with exceptions as to certain respondents). Meeting allowed to continue for discussion only.

Orders

  • The respondents, other than the Fifteenth, Seventeenth and Twentieth respondents, are restrained from passing any resolution at the meeting purporting to be an extraordinary meeting of the Divisional Conference of the FFTS Union Division convened by notice dated 8 October 2001.
  • The respondents, other than the Fifteenth, Seventeenth and Twentieth respondents, are restrained from giving effect to any resolution passed at the said meeting.