Geneff, Ruth Margaret v Peterson, F.E. & Ors & Clothing & Allied Trades Union of Australia [1984] FCA 209

Geneff, Ruth Margaret v Peterson, F.E. & Ors & Clothing & Allied Trades Union of Australia [1984] FCA 209

Parts of the rule nisi that lack specificity, refer only abstractly to observance of union rules, or challenge rules previously found not oppressive or not contrary to the Act, cannot succeed and are struck out. Issues involving facts in dispute, such as financiality of the branch or compliance of office election methods with the Act, must proceed to substantive hearing. Costs are reserved pending final decision.

Parties
Applicant: Ruth Margaret Geneff; First Respondent: F.E. Peterson; First Respondent: W. Claringbold; First Respondent: L. Farrelly; First Respondent: T. Bryden; First Respondent: F. Harding; First Respondent: R. Broomfield; First Respondent: C. George; First Respondent: R. Smith; First Respondent: K. Boyd; First Respondent: P. McGarry; First Respondent: K. Collins; Second Respondent: The Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 1984
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Conciliation and Arbitration / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Parts of Rule Nisi; Interlocutory
Outcome
Respondents' motion to strike out granted in part and refused in part; certain parts of the rule nisi are struck out; amendment to order 4 allowed; application to further amend rule nisi partly refused and partly adjourned; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Union Rules Validity, Oppression/unreasonableness of Union Rules, Direct and Collegiate Voting Systems, Federal Court Summary Dismissal Powers, Union Branch Financial Standing, Notice of Meetings and Agendas, Election and Office Eligibility, Interpretation of Conciliation and Arbitration Act Provisions
Industrial Law Union Rules Validity Oppression/unreasonableness of Union Rules Direct and Collegiate Voting Systems Federal Court Summary Dismissal Powers Union Branch Financial Standing Notice of Meetings and Agendas Election and Office Eligibility +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Margaret Geneff

Applicant

F.E. Peterson

First Respondent

W. Claringbold

First Respondent

L. Farrelly

First Respondent

T. Bryden

First Respondent

F. Harding

First Respondent

R. Broomfield

First Respondent

C. George

First Respondent

R. Smith

First Respondent

K. Boyd

First Respondent

P. McGarry

First Respondent

K. Collins

First Respondent

The Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Conciliation and Arbitration / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Parts of Rule Nisi; Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific union rules are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust as per Conciliation and Arbitration Act s.140(1)
  2. 2 Whether union rules and procedure for office elections comply with ss.133 and 4 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction and discretion to strike out claims as frivolous, vexatious or without reasonable cause

Ratio Decidendi

Parts of the rule nisi that lack specificity, refer only abstractly to observance of union rules, or challenge rules previously found not oppressive or not contrary to the Act, cannot succeed and are struck out. Issues involving facts in dispute, such as financiality of the branch or compliance of office election methods with the Act, must proceed to substantive hearing. Costs are reserved pending final decision.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion to strike out granted in part and refused in part; certain parts of the rule nisi are struck out; amendment to order 4 allowed; application to further amend rule nisi partly refused and partly adjourned; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The applicant has leave to amend para. 4 of the rule nisi in accordance with notice of motion filed 26 June 1984.
  • Application to amend the rule nisi by adding rule 16 is refused.