Bourke, Michael Patrick v Mapstone, David John Garland - [1984] FCA 116

1 ' J

, . fIb

Ipi THE	FEDERAL	COURT	OF	A U S T R A L I A	)
1

V I C T O R I A	D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	)	V.	No.	2 8 of 19R3
1

INDUSTRIAL	D ~ ~ I S I O N	1
-
BETWEEN:

MICIIAEL PATRICK

BOURRE

an3 O R S .

A p p l i c a n t s

and

DAVID

JOHN

GARLAND

MAPSTONE

R e s p o n d e n t s	and	O R S .
-

CORAY:	Northrop J.
-	DATE :	10 April- 1984
DLACE:	B r l s b a n e

EX TEk'PORE

JUDGXENT

October

1983 Elichael

P a t r i c k

B o n r k e o b t a i n e d

r u l e n i s l u n d e r

s.141

C o n c l l l a t l o n and

A r b i t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 0 4

c a l l l n g

upon

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s ,

o t h e r

t h a n

t h e

F e d e r a t e d

C l e r k s '

U n i o n

Australia,

s h o w cause w h y c e r t a i n orders

s h o u l d

n o t be

made

directing

t h e m t o perform

or observe t h e

r u l e s

t he

C l e r k s '

Un ion .

O n

A p r i l

1984,

the

C o u r t

ordered

t h a t

t he

r u l e n i s l be

d ischarged .

C o u n s e l

for

t h e

respondents ,

o ther

t h a n

the

C l e r k s '

U n i o n ,

B a r r y

Trevor

- 2 -

Llnske t and Brian

Francls

Tooley,

thereupon

moved

the

Cour

t ha t

Mlchae

Pa t r l ck

Rourke

and

the

o ther

persons

added

a p p l i c a n t s ,

p u r s u a n t

t o

l e a v e

g r a n t e d

on 7

February

1984,

o r d e r e d

t o

pay

the

c o s t s

h l s

c l i e n t s

( h e r e i n a f t e…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bourke, Michael Patrick v Mapstone, David John Garland 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: [1984] FCA 116
Decision Date: 10 Apr 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bourke, Michael Patrick v Mapstone, David John Garland was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue in the case was whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to award costs against the applicants in a proceeding under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The respondents, excluding the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, sought an order for the applicants to pay their costs. The applicants had previously obtained a rule nisi under s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which was subsequently discharged by the Court. The Court had to determine whether s.197A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which limits the power of specified courts to make orders for costs against parties to proceedings under the Act, applied to proceedings before the Federal Court. The Court found that s.197A did not apply to proceedings before the Federal Court, and therefore, the Court had the power to award costs against the applicants. The Court exercised its discretion and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs, considering the special circumstances of the case.

Orders