Fegan v Jackson [2009] FCA 319

Fegan v Jackson [2009] FCA 319

The applicant did not make a sufficient showing that the challenged rules, individually or in combination, were oppressive, unreasonable or unjust or failed to provide appropriate member control; rule 66 was not shown to be limited so as to prevent a plebiscite from effectively overruling a Special General Meeting decision; and the balance of convenience did not favour cancelling or adjourning the meeting because the petitioning members' opportunity to meet would be lost, significant costs had already been incurred, and the applicant could pursue validity issues after the meeting if necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Orders Under Ss 163 And/or 164 of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Interim Orders Application
Outcome
Application for interim orders refused.
Legal Topics
['registered Organisations' 'union Rules' 'special General Meeting' 'interim Orders' 'oppressive, Unreasonable or Unjust Rules' 'balance of Convenience']
['industrial Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['registered Organisations' 'union Rules' 'special General Meeting' 'interim Orders' 'oppressive, Unreasonable or Unjust Rules' 'balance of Convenience']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Orders Under Ss 163 And/or 164 of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Interim Orders Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim orders should be granted requiring cancellation or adjournment of the special general meeting called for 8 April 2009.' 'Whether there was a serious question that rules 49(d), 62(f), rule 62, or the Union rules as a whole contravened s 142(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) as oppressive, unreasonable or unjust.' 'Whether the rules failed to make appropriate provision for control of the Branch committee by members.' 'Whether rule 66 could permit a branch plebiscite to overrule a decision made at a Special General Meeting.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interim orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not make a sufficient showing that the challenged rules, individually or in combination, were oppressive, unreasonable or unjust or failed to provide appropriate member control; rule 66 was not shown to be limited so as to prevent a plebiscite from effectively overruling a Special General Meeting decision; and the balance of convenience did not favour cancelling or adjourning the meeting because the petitioning members' opportunity to meet would be lost, significant costs had already been incurred, and the applicant could pursue validity issues after the meeting if necessary.

Court Disposition

Application for interim orders refused.

Orders

  • ['The interim orders sought by the applicant be refused.']