Geneff, R.M. v. Peterson, F.E. & Ors [1980] FCA 126

The Court had power to amend the rule nisi and would allow amendments only where the proposed relief was at least arguable or consequential on an arguable challenge. The challenges concerning the manner of summoning Federal Council meetings and the General Secretary-Treasurer's position on the Federal Council were arguable, and consequential relief concerning that office should also be allowed. The proposed amendments concerning branch financial status, submission of industrial agreements, expenses for Federal Council members, and a general direction to comply with rule 27(a) were not shown to be arguable or appropriate. The hearing should remain in Perth because changing venue would...

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 12 September 1980
Procedural Posture: Application Pursuant to Regulation 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations for a Rule to Show Cause Under Ss.140 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Reasons on the Applicant's Application to Amend a Rule Nisi and Order for Directions
Outcome: Application to amend the rule nisi allowed in part in respect of paragraphs 1, 2, 6 and 7; other proposed amendments disallowed; directions made and hearing fixed in Perth.
Legal Topics: ['rule Nisi' 'amendment of Rule Nisi' 'registered Organisation Rules' 'validity of Union Rules' 'federal Court Jurisdiction' 'venue for Hearing' 'directions']

['industrial Law' 'trade Union Governance' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['rule Nisi' 'amendment of Rule Nisi' 'registered Organisation Rules' 'validity of Union Rules' 'federal Court Jurisdiction' 'venue for Hearing' 'directions']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Pursuant to Regulation 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations for a Rule to Show Cause Under Ss.140 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Reasons on the Applicant's Application to Amend a Rule Nisi and Order for Directions

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the Federal Court had power to amend a rule nisi where no express provision authorised amendment.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to amend the rule nisi to challenge rules concerning summoning meetings of the Federal Council.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to challenge rule 16(a) concerning the General Secretary-Treasurer being a member of the Federal Council by virtue of office.' 'Whether rule 16(b), requiring branches to be financial before representation on the Federal Council, was arguably oppressive, unreasonable or unjust.' 'Whether the rules were arguably invalid for failing to require submission of industrial agreements and amendments to affected branches.' 'Whether the rules were arguably invalid for failing to make adequate provision for travelling and other expenses incurred by members of the Federal Council on duties other than attending Council meetings.' 'Whether consequential orders should be available treating the office of General Secretary-Treasurer as vacant and requiring the Federal President to call a meeting to fill that office as a casual vacancy.' 'Whether the Court should direct the Federal Secretary generally to perform rule 27(a).' 'Whether the hearing should be held in Perth or Sydney.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to amend the rule nisi allowed in part in respect of paragraphs 1, 2, 6 and 7; other proposed amendments disallowed; directions made and hearing fixed in Perth.

Orders

['The application to amend is allowed in respect of paragraphs 1, 2, 6 and 7.' 'The applicant shall file and serve upon the respondents within 10 days a statement of claim.' "Service by the applicant on the respondents' solicitors S, Massellos & Co of 42 Martin Place, Sydney, shall be sufficient service." "Within 14...