Mcjannett v Bulloch [2012] FCA 1233

Mcjannett v Bulloch [2012] FCA 1233

The Court found there was insufficient factual foundation to support the applicant's allegations of deliberate refusal to accept his dues prior to 1 April 2010; evidence provided (including from his step-son) was not sufficiently probative or corroborated, and was rebutted by consistent union staff affidavit evidence. The payment timing meant the applicant was unfinancial for a required period, and Rule 38(a)(i)(B) expressly disqualified him despite subsequent payment. There was no evidence of a strategy or conduct amounting to an irregularity. On all the material, there were not reasonable grounds for instituting an inquiry and thus no jurisdiction to grant interim orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry and Interim Orders Under the Fair Work (registered Organisations) Act 2009 (cth) / Judgment on Substituted Originating Application and Interim Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['election Inquiry' 'union Membership Eligibility' 'breach of Union Rules' 'irregularities in Union Elections' 'rule Construction' 'interim/interlocutory Relief']
['industrial Law'] ['election Inquiry' 'union Membership Eligibility' 'breach of Union Rules' 'irregularities in Union Elections' 'rule Construction' 'interim/interlocutory Relief']

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 Inquiry and Interim Orders Under the Fair Work (registered Organisations) Act 2009 (cth) / Judgment on Substituted Originating Application and Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there are reasonable grounds for instituting an inquiry under s 200 of the FWRO Act into alleged irregularities in a union election' 'Whether the applicant was prevented from validly nominating for election due to deliberate refusal of subscription payments by the union' 'Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an irregularity under the relevant legislation/rules' 'Whether interim orders halting the election are appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found there was insufficient factual foundation to support the applicant's allegations of deliberate refusal to accept his dues prior to 1 April 2010; evidence provided (including from his step-son) was not sufficiently probative or corroborated, and was rebutted by consistent union staff affidavit evidence. The payment timing meant the applicant was unfinancial for a required period, and Rule 38(a)(i)(B) expressly disqualified him despite subsequent payment. There was no evidence of a strategy or conduct amounting to an irregularity. On all the material, there were not reasonable grounds for instituting an inquiry and thus no jurisdiction to grant interim orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The substituted originating application for inquiry filed 2 November 2012 be dismissed.' 'The originating application for interim orders filed 2 November 2012 be dismissed.']