Jess, Michael Patrick v Scott, R.J. & Ors [1984] FCA 36

Jess, Michael Patrick v Scott, R.J. & Ors [1984] FCA 36

The rules of the union, on their true construction, implicitly require that powers of management and application of union funds must be exercised bona fide for the benefit of all members, not to support or defeat particular candidates; this implied obligation can be enforced under s.141, giving the Court jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Patrick Jess; Respondent: R.J. Scott; Respondent: J.G. Kidd; Respondent: L. Carmichael; Respondent: G. Campbell; Respondent: R.A. Bruggy; Respondent: W. Martin; Respondent: E. Lipscombe; Respondent: F. Maurice; Respondent: D.A. Beer; Respondent: W.R. Arscott; Respondent: F. McGowan; Respondent: R.B. Hawkes; Respondent: G. Harrison; Respondent: R.M. Adamson; Respondent: H. Malcolm; Respondent: P. Johnson; Respondent: J.F. Halfpenny; Respondent: J. O'Neill; Respondent: R. Pointer; Respondent: M. Tumbers; Respondent: H. Peden; Respondent: A.J. Marks; Respondent: B.R. Burns; Respondent: J.A. Vaughan; Respondent: M.K. Hill
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 1984
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law—application Under S.141 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Interlocutory Application Regarding Jurisdiction and Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Jurisdiction upheld, application for summary dismissal by respondents dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trade Union Rules, Jurisdiction of Federal Court Under S.141, Implied Obligations in Union Rules
Industrial Law Trade Union Rules Jurisdiction of Federal Court Under S.141 Implied Obligations in Union Rules

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Patrick Jess

Applicant

R.J. Scott

Respondent

J.G. Kidd

Respondent

L. Carmichael

Respondent

G. Campbell

Respondent

R.A. Bruggy

Respondent

W. Martin

Respondent

E. Lipscombe

Respondent

F. Maurice

Respondent

D.A. Beer

Respondent

W.R. Arscott

Respondent

F. McGowan

Respondent

R.B. Hawkes

Respondent

G. Harrison

Respondent

R.M. Adamson

Respondent

H. Malcolm

Respondent

P. Johnson

Respondent

J.F. Halfpenny

Respondent

J. O'Neill

Respondent

R. Pointer

Respondent

M. Tumbers

Respondent

H. Peden

Respondent

A.J. Marks

Respondent

B.R. Burns

Respondent

J.A. Vaughan

Respondent

M.K. Hill

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law—application Under S.141 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Interlocutory Application Regarding Jurisdiction and Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Court have jurisdiction under s.141 to make orders based on terms implied in union rules?
  2. 2 Can an obligation not literally expressed in the rules, but implicit, be enforced using s.141?

Ratio Decidendi

The rules of the union, on their true construction, implicitly require that powers of management and application of union funds must be exercised bona fide for the benefit of all members, not to support or defeat particular candidates; this implied obligation can be enforced under s.141, giving the Court jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction upheld, application for summary dismissal by respondents dismissed.

Orders

  • Declare that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for relief under s.141 of the Act.
  • Dismiss the respondents' application for summary dismissal of the proceeding.