Squires, Richard James v Stephenson, Keith & Ors [1983] FCA 19

Squires, Richard James v Stephenson, Keith & Ors [1983] FCA 19

The disciplinary charge and subsequent penalties imposed on the applicant were invalid both procedurally (failure to properly notify and specify the charge) and substantively (charge did not amount to advocacy of disobedience to a lawful decision, and the underlying Council decision was itself unlawful as contrary to s.188 of the Act). Purported amendments to rules 9(b) and 11(c) were procedurally invalid for failure to follow notice and voting requirements. Certain rules, particularly Rule 15(d) (Council not bound by general meetings) and telegraphic amendments, contravene the Act and are oppressive or unreasonable under s.140(1)(c).

Parties
Applicant: Richard James Squires; Respondent: Keith Stephenson; Respondent: Glen Holland; Respondent: Peter Jacobs; Respondent: Warren Smith; Respondent: Rone Herbert; Respondent: David Barwick; Respondent: Lew Jackson; Respondent: David Lomas; Respondent: Charlie Lucas; Respondent: Garry Morris; Respondent: Paul Murphy; Respondent: Michael Sheehan; Respondent: Christopher Tregeagle; Respondent: Tony Baker; Respondent: Malcolm Miller; Respondent: Jon Jenkins; Respondent: Trevor Wilkins; Respondent: Davey Jones; Respondent: Flight Stewards' Association of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 1983
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law (application Under Statute) / Judgment Following Rule to Show Cause
Outcome
Orders to be made as requested in the rule nisi subject to further argument concerning certification and registration requirements; charge and related Council proceedings declared null and void; amendments to rules declared invalid for procedural reasons; further argument required regarding statutory certification.
Legal Topics
Validity of Charge Against Union Member, Amendment of Union Rules, Lawful Decisions Under Union Rules, Conciliation and Arbitration Act Compliance
Industrial Law Validity of Charge Against Union Member Amendment of Union Rules Lawful Decisions Under Union Rules Conciliation and Arbitration Act Compliance

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard James Squires

Applicant

Keith Stephenson

Respondent

Glen Holland

Respondent

Peter Jacobs

Respondent

Warren Smith

Respondent

Rone Herbert

Respondent

David Barwick

Respondent

Lew Jackson

Respondent

David Lomas

Respondent

Charlie Lucas

Respondent

Garry Morris

Respondent

Paul Murphy

Respondent

Michael Sheehan

Respondent

Christopher Tregeagle

Respondent

Tony Baker

Respondent

Malcolm Miller

Respondent

Jon Jenkins

Respondent

Trevor Wilkins

Respondent

Davey Jones

Respondent

Flight Stewards' Association of Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law (application Under Statute) / Judgment Following Rule to Show Cause

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the disciplinary charge against the applicant valid under the rules and law?
  2. 2 Were amendments to the Association’s rules validly made?
  3. 3 Do certain Association rules contravene provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and regulations?

Ratio Decidendi

The disciplinary charge and subsequent penalties imposed on the applicant were invalid both procedurally (failure to properly notify and specify the charge) and substantively (charge did not amount to advocacy of disobedience to a lawful decision, and the underlying Council decision was itself unlawful as contrary to s.188 of the Act). Purported amendments to rules 9(b) and 11(c) were procedurally invalid for failure to follow notice and voting requirements. Certain rules, particularly Rule 15(d) (Council not bound by general meetings) and telegraphic amendments, contravene the Act and are oppressive or unreasonable under s.140(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Orders to be made as requested in the rule nisi subject to further argument concerning certification and registration requirements; charge and related Council proceedings declared null and void; amendments to rules declared invalid for procedural reasons; further argument required regarding statutory certification.

Orders

  • Treat charge against applicant as null and void.
  • Treat proceedings relating to charge as null and void.