Allen, Francis v Henderson, Thomas Horatio

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Re: FRANCIS ALLEN
And: THOMAS HORATIO HENDERSON
Nos. WA9, WA10 and WA11 of 1983
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
4 IR 382

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Beaumont J.
CATCHWORDS

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 - Alleged failure to comply with order of court to perform and observe rules of registered organisation - Suspension and dismissal of branch organisers from office - Principles regarding compliance with orders - Failure to comply to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 s.141

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 2:9:1983

ORDER

1. The information be dismissed.

JUDGE1

By summons dated 27 May, 1983, the prosecutor charges the defendant with a failure to comply with an order of this Court contrary to s.141(4) of the Conciliation and Abritration Act, 1904 ("the Act").

A member of an organisation may apply to the Court under s.141(1) of the Act for an order under s.141 in respect of the organisation. An order under s.141 may give directions for the performance or observance of any of the rules of an organisation by any person who is under an obligation to perform or observe those rules (s.141(1G)). A person shall not fail to comply with a direction or order of the Court under s.141. A penalty of $400.00 is prescribed (s.141(4)).

The charge made by the prosecutor is that on 9 May, 1983, at the offices of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia, Western Australian Branch at 108 Beaufort Street, Perth, the defendant, being a person who was on 6 May, 1983 ordered by this Court to perform and observe the rules of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia ("the Union") by treating as null and void the resolution of the committee of management of the Western Australian Branch thereof carried at its meeting on 25 February, 1983, suspending the prosecutor as an organiser of the Western Australian Branch of the Union, failed to comply with the said order contrary to s.141(4) of the Act.

On 6 May, 1983, in proceedings in this Court under s.141 (being Nos. W.A. 1, 2 and 3 of 1983) between the prosecutor and Leslie Alan Semple Park as applicants and the defendant, the Union and others as defendants, Toohey, J. made the following orders:

"THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. In applications Nos. WA 1 and WA 2 of 1983 the respondent Thomas Horatio Henderson perform and observe the rules of the Federal organization by treating as null and void the suspension of the applicants as organizers of the Western Australian Branch of The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia on 2 February 1983.
2. In application No. WA 3 of 1983 the respondents Frederick Hagger, Thomas Horatio Henderson, P. Sideris, N.G. Parker, J.P. French and K.V. Hall perform and observe the rules of the Federal organization by treating as null and void the resolution of the committee of management carried at its meeting on 25 February 1983 suspending and dismissing the applicants as…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allen, Francis v Henderson, Thomas Horatio and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1983] FCA 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Allen, Francis, brought an action against Henderson, Thomas Horatio, concerning allegations of non-compliance with a court order to observe the rules of a registered organisation. The dispute arose from proceedings under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, where it was alleged that the respondent failed to comply with an order of the court to perform and observe the rules of a registered organisation, leading to his suspension and dismissal from office. The central legal issues revolved around the principles governing compliance with court orders and the burden of proof required to establish a failure to comply.

The court examined whether the failure to comply with the court's order was established beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent argued that the allegations against him were not proven to the required standard, and that his actions did not constitute a failure to comply with the rules of the registered organisation. The court considered the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, along with the appropriate burden of proof in such matters. It determined that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the allegations of non-compliance beyond reasonable doubt, and thus the respondent's actions could not be deemed as a failure to comply with the court's order.

Consequently, the court found in favour of the respondent and dismissed the information against him. The court emphasised that the burden of proof lies with the party making the allegations, and that such allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Given the evidence presented, the court concluded that the respondent had not failed to comply with the court's order, and his suspension and dismissal from office were therefore unjustified. The final order of the court was that the information be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The information be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.