Ward, Leonard Edward Ors v Williams Hughie & Ors [1984] FCA 298

Ward, Leonard Edward Ors v Williams Hughie & Ors [1984] FCA 298

Given the Full Court authority in Brophy v. Mapstone and the concession that proceedings were not instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, no costs order can be made against the applicants; thus, there is no order as to costs.

Parties
Applicant: Leonard Edward Ward; Applicant: Gregory John Ray; Applicant: Lawrence John Turner; Applicant: Brian Stuart Lee; Applicant: Leslie Ronald Lee; Applicant: Roy Leslie Lincoln; Applicant: Donald Lynald Barden; Applicant: Ronald James Potter; Applicant: John Charles Penhallurick; Respondent: Hughie Williams; Respondent: Allan McPaul; Respondent: Clarence Rohweder; Respondent: Gregory Newton; Respondent: Henry Asplin; Respondent: Stuart Crosby; Respondent: David Pearce; Respondent: Mervyn Kendall; Respondent: Peter Thomson; Respondent: John Hinspeter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Rule Nisi/costs Order / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Costs, Jurisdiction of Federal Court Under Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
Industrial Law Union Rules Costs Jurisdiction of Federal Court Under Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Edward Ward

Applicant

Gregory John Ray

Applicant

Lawrence John Turner

Applicant

Brian Stuart Lee

Applicant

Leslie Ronald Lee

Applicant

Roy Leslie Lincoln

Applicant

Donald Lynald Barden

Applicant

Ronald James Potter

Applicant

John Charles Penhallurick

Applicant

Hughie Williams

Respondent

Allan McPaul

Respondent

Clarence Rohweder

Respondent

Gregory Newton

Respondent

Henry Asplin

Respondent

Stuart Crosby

Respondent

David Pearce

Respondent

Mervyn Kendall

Respondent

Peter Thomson

Respondent

John Hinspeter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rule Nisi/costs Order / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 197A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 applies to preclude an order for costs against unsuccessful applicants
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court's power to award costs under Section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 was limited by section 197A

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Full Court authority in Brophy v. Mapstone and the concession that proceedings were not instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, no costs order can be made against the applicants; thus, there is no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • There be no order as to the costs of the proceedings.