Mellor, S. (inquiry into an election in Federated Liquor & Anor) [1986] FCA 467
The answers to the circulars are admissible in evidence, and the statements of conclusion in the summary sheets (Exhibit 'W') need not be deleted, as permitted by s.164(4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is not open to the parties to treat the inquiry as a criminal trial regarding objection to evidence,...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Shirley Mellor; Respondent: J.E. Curtis; Respondent: Elton; Respondent: Hardie
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Inquiry Into Election / Pre Hearing Orders, Admissibility of Evidence Ruled
- Outcome
- orders varied and evidence ruled admissible
- Legal Topics
- Union Elections, Court Procedure, Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shirley Mellor
Applicant
J.E. Curtis
Respondent
Elton
Respondent
Hardie
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Election / Pre Hearing Orders, Admissibility of Evidence Ruled
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether answers to circulars and summary sheets (Exhibit 'W') are admissible as evidence under s.164(4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act
- 2 Whether the parties are required to file affidavits and can object to the evidence as in a criminal trial context
Ratio Decidendi
The answers to the circulars are admissible in evidence, and the statements of conclusion in the summary sheets (Exhibit 'W') need not be deleted, as permitted by s.164(4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is not open to the parties to treat the inquiry as a criminal trial regarding objection to evidence, and filing of affidavits as previously ordered is required.
Court Disposition
orders varied and evidence ruled admissible
Orders
- The matter be determined by the Court at a hearing to commence on Monday, 17 November 1986.
- Affidavits to be relied upon to be filed and served as follows: (a) On behalf of J.E. Curtis, by way of supplementary material only, as soon as reasonably possible after such material becomes available; (b) On behalf of the applicant Shirley Mellor, on or before 17 October 1986; (c) On behalf of Messrs. Elton and...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
67 paragraphs
s '
4)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) Q6 of 1986 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )
APPLICATION BY SHIRLEY MELLOR FOR AN INQUIRY INTO AN ELECTION IN THE FEDERATED LIQUOR AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES
EMPLOYEES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
MINUTES OF ORDER
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 10 OCTOBER 1986 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. This matter be determined by the Court at a hearing to commence on Monday, 17 November 1986.
2. The affidavits to be relied upon be filed and served: -
(a) On behalf of J.E. Curtis, by way of supplementary material only, as soon as reasonably possible after such material becomes available to the said J.E. Curtis.
(b) On behalf of the applicant, Shirley Mellor, on or before 17 October 1986.
(c) On behalf of Messrs. Elton and Hardie on or before 31 October 1986.
2A. Oral evidence may be called at the hearing by leave only on the Court's being satisfied that special circumstances exist necessitating the giving of such leave.
2B. The persons who, to the knowledge of the said J.E. Curtis, make direct accusations relevant to the case against either or both of Messrs. Elton or Hardie be approached to make affidavits, and that such affidavits be filed as soon as possible, and if any of such persons is unwilling to make any
bar i
affidavit, that he be subpoenaed and called at the hearing on behalf of the said J.E. Curtis.
Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federai Court Rules.
IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) Q6 of 1986 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )
APPLICATION BY SHIRLEY MELLOR FOR AN INQUIRY INTO AN ELECTION IN THE FEDERATED LIQUOR AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
PINCUS J. 10 October 1986
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter Mr. Hanger Q.C., who appears with Mr. Diehm for Mr. Curtis, has drawn my attention to the fact that the inquiry may be somewhat embarrassed if, on the date set for hearing - which is now 17 November 1986 - it is unclear what
material is properly before the court.
Mr. Jerrard of counsel has pointed out that some of the material, and in particular the sheets, Exhibit "W", consists of conclusions as well as statements of primary fact. More importantly, Mr. Jerrard says that the answers to the circulars which constitute the large proportion of the primary facts should
not be received.
The view which I took when the matter was last before me was that a proper conclusion could be drawn from the material without the necessity of calling for the persons who have answered
circulars, and I adhere to that view.
It is, of course, open to any party to seek to call before the trial judge such oral evidence as he sees fit, but it has been my purpose to try to ensure that the matter 1s heard expeditiously and justly. Section 164(4) of the Conciliation and
Arbitration Act produces the result that the procedure of the
Court is, subject to the Act and Regulations, within the Court's
discretion and:
"the Court is not bound to act in a formal manner and is not bound by any rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as 1t thinks just."
As I understand the attitude of Mr. Jerrard's clients, they propose to at least consider ignoring the order I made when the matter was last before me for filing of affidavits on their behalf, to attempt to conduct the matter as if it were a criminal trial by taking objection to the evidence and then, depending on the result of the objection, deciding what course they will take: whether to call evidence or not. It is not my intention to permit that to happen, and I therefore accede to Mr. Hanger Q.C.'s suggestion that I should rule now on the points raised by Mr. Jerrard, rather than leaving the whole matter to Gray J. T had initially thought it was convenient to leave Gray J. to deal with
all evidentiary points, but it turns out not to be so.
I therefore rule as follows: that the answers to the
circulars are properly received in evidence, and that under s.164(4)(b) the statements of conclusions made in the summary
sheets, Exhibit "W", need not be deleted. As to the latter, they
seem to me to be innocuous, the summary sheets are really just a
ready reference. and it 1s inconceivable to me that any judge would give any particular weight to conclusions that others might draw from the primary material, all of which has been made
avallable to the Court.
I therefore decline to strike out any of the evidence which is objected to. The orders which were made when the matter was last before me on 2 October need to be varied. Order 1 will
be deleted and replaced by the following order:
The matter be determined by the Court at a hearing to
commence on Monday, 17 November 1986.
Order 2 requires to be varied in the following fashion. 2(a) will
read:
On behalf of J.E. Curtis, by way of supplementary material only, as soon as reasonably possible after such material
becomes available to the said J.E. Curtis.
2(b), will be:
On behalf of the applicant Shirley Mellor, on or before 17 October 1986.
2(c), will be as it is. There will also be an order 2A:
Oral evidence may be called at the hearing by leave only on
the Court's being satisfied that special circumstances exist
necessitating the giving of such leave.
I will add order 2B:
That the persons who, to the knowledge of the said J.E. Curtis, make direct accusations relevant to the case against either or both of Messrs. Elton or Hardie be approached to make affidavits and that such affidavits be filed as soon as possible, and if any of such persons is unwilling to make any
affidavit, that he be subpoenaed and called at the hearing on
behalf of the said J.E. Curtis.
Order number 3 of my previous order made on 2 October 1986 is now
spent, and will be deleted. There seems to be no necessity
make a change in the subsequent orders.
* certify that this and the 3 preceding " > 95 areé a true copy of the reasons for ju! ment herein of His Honour
Mr Justice Pincus ptt igor Associate Dated /0 O-Cnleer 14 86
to