Harris, W. v. Arndt, R. & Anor [1985] FCA 491

Harris, W. v. Arndt, R. & Anor [1985] FCA 491

The rule nisi was discharged because the claimant did not wish to proceed and the information sought was available under the union rules. The proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause because an appropriate request for inspection under rule 23 would have provided the claimant with the information, and the evidence included an uncorrected erroneous statement that may have been critical to the making of the rule nisi. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, but only one set, because separate representation of the two respondents was not shown to be necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 1985
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding Concerning Inspection of a Union Membership Roll / Return of Rule Nisi; Claimant Did Not Proceed and Respondents Sought Costs
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged; respondents awarded costs limited to one set of costs.
Legal Topics
['inspection of Union Membership Roll' 'union Rules' 'costs Where Proceedings Instituted Vexatiously or Without Reasonable Cause']
['industrial Law'] ['inspection of Union Membership Roll' 'union Rules' 'costs Where Proceedings Instituted Vexatiously or Without Reasonable Cause']

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

Industrial Law Proceeding Concerning Inspection of a Union Membership Roll / Return of Rule Nisi; Claimant Did Not Proceed and Respondents Sought Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the rule nisi should be discharged when the claimant no longer wished to proceed because the requested information was available under the union rules.' 'Whether the proceedings had been instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause for the purposes of section 197A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904.' 'Whether the claimant should pay one or two sets of costs where the two respondents were separately represented.']

Ratio Decidendi

The rule nisi was discharged because the claimant did not wish to proceed and the information sought was available under the union rules. The proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause because an appropriate request for inspection under rule 23 would have provided the claimant with the information, and the evidence included an uncorrected erroneous statement that may have been critical to the making of the rule nisi. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, but only one set, because separate representation of the two respondents was not shown to be necessary.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged; respondents awarded costs limited to one set of costs.

Orders

  • ['The rule nisi made by the Honourable Mr. Justice Evatt on 9 August 1985 be discharged.' "The claimant pay the respondents' costs of the rule, but to the extent of one set of costs only."]