Jolly v Sharma [2025] FCAFC 20

Jolly v Sharma [2025] FCAFC 20

The Rules of the Union do not impose conditions, obligations, or restrictions that are oppressive, unreasonable, or unjust within the meaning of s 142(1)(c) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), as they provide for funding of Branch Divisions through Branch discretion, consistent with democratic governance. The absence of a specific rule guaranteeing a minimum quantum of funding does not, in the circumstances, render the Rules oppressive, unreasonable or unjust.

Parties
Appellant: Paris Jolly; First Respondent: Vikrant Sharma; Second Respondent: Darren Lamont; Third Respondent: Brian Penza; Fourth Respondent: Cate Rosser; Fifth Respondent: Bryan Evans; Sixth Respondent: Darren Galea; Seventh Respondent: Joe Dennis; Eighth Respondent: Chris McMahon; Ninth Respondent: John Nicolopoulos; Tenth Respondent: Victor Moore; Eleventh Respondent: Peter Veis; Twelfth Respondent: Jon Saw; Thirteenth Respondent: Cathy Birch; Fourteenth Respondent: Sally Van Bragt; Fifteenth Respondent: Paul Jumpertz; Sixteenth Respondent: Angela Lardner; Seventeenth Respondent: Catherine Noone; Eighteenth Respondent: Frank Pavic; Nineteenth Respondent: John Antonopoulos; Twentieth Respondent: Rupert Braganza; Twenty First Respondent: Wayne Hicks; Twenty Second Respondent: Tarik Koc; Twenty Third Respondent: Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Full Court Hearing
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Registered Organisations, Union Rules, Oppressive Rules, Internal Governance, Funding of Union Divisions
Industrial Law Employment Law Registered Organisations Union Rules Oppressive Rules Internal Governance Funding of Union Divisions

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paris Jolly

Appellant

Vikrant Sharma

First Respondent

Darren Lamont

Second Respondent

Brian Penza

Third Respondent

Cate Rosser

Fourth Respondent

Bryan Evans

Fifth Respondent

Darren Galea

Sixth Respondent

Joe Dennis

Seventh Respondent

Chris McMahon

Eighth Respondent

John Nicolopoulos

Ninth Respondent

Victor Moore

Tenth Respondent

Peter Veis

Eleventh Respondent

Jon Saw

Twelfth Respondent

Cathy Birch

Thirteenth Respondent

Sally Van Bragt

Fourteenth Respondent

Paul Jumpertz

Fifteenth Respondent

Angela Lardner

Sixteenth Respondent

Catherine Noone

Seventeenth Respondent

Frank Pavic

Eighteenth Respondent

John Antonopoulos

Nineteenth Respondent

Rupert Braganza

Twentieth Respondent

Wayne Hicks

Twenty First Respondent

Tarik Koc

Twenty Second Respondent

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union

Twenty Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Full Court Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Union's Rules impose conditions, obligations or restrictions that are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust within the meaning of s 142(1)(c) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the absence of guaranteed funding for the Victorian Locomotive Division is oppressive, unreasonable or unjust under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Rules of the Union do not impose conditions, obligations, or restrictions that are oppressive, unreasonable, or unjust within the meaning of s 142(1)(c) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), as they provide for funding of Branch Divisions through Branch discretion, consistent with democratic governance. The absence of a specific rule guaranteeing a minimum quantum of funding does not, in the circumstances, render the Rules oppressive, unreasonable or unjust.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.