Brahim, J.P. v Ide, D - [1991] FCA 334

JUDGMENT NO. 334 / .. 41 . . ..- , ,

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

- E U g 1
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION 1
No. Q1 16 of 1991
BETWEEN: JEFFREY PHILLIP BRAHIM. NORMAN HARRY
MURDOCH, PETER FRANCIS UNDERWOOD,
DAVID GEORGE BYRNE. MARGARET JOYCE

- N A L
RICHARD CLARKE AND HUBERT GEORGE WEBB
Applicants

AND: DENNIS IDE. WALTER MALCOLM RUTHERFORD,

TERENCE JOSEPH MELLAFONT. DON KINMAN.
GEORGE DAVIS

First Respondents 1
AND: NATIONAL UNION OF STOREWORKERS. PACKERS,
RUBBER AND ALLIED WORKERS
Second Respondent

No. Q1 17 of 1991 t l %

BETWEEN: WALTER MALCOLM RUTHERFORD 1, . 6

Applicant 1:

AND: JEFFREY PHILLIP BRAHIM. NORMAN HARRY

MURDOCH, PETER FRANCIS UNDERWOOD.
DAVID GEORGE BYRNE, MARGARET JOYCE
LANE, NOELA ETHYL JOHNSON, MICHAEL
RICHARD CLARKE AND HUBERT GEORGE WEBB

office at 17 Cribb Street, Milton.
Respondents

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. RECEIVED
DATE OF ORDER: 27 MAY 1991
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER: i
I .

1. The Respondents in Q1 16/91 do not occupy the Union C* .
2. The Respondents do not remove any papers, books, files, computers and equipment or any other objects from the office at 17 Cribb Street, Milton.
3. The Respondents permit and do not obstruct the entry to the Union office at 17 Cribb Street, Milton and the attendance at that office of a security guard engaged by the Applicants on behalf of the Union to guard and protect the Union's property.

4. The applicants grant to Walter Malcolm Rutherford
full and free access during ordinary working hours
to :
(a) the office and office equipment; and
(b) the computers; and

(c) the files, the financial and other records and the correspondence of the Queensland branch of the Union;
and for that purpose do permit him to have the assistance of office staff and other employees of the Queensland branch of the Union.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
5. The Applicants in Q1 16/91 supply on or before 31 May, 1991 to the Respondents particulars of the rule or rules of the Organization the performance or observance of which is in question as contemplated by Order 4 Rule 15(5a).

6. Jeffrey Phillip Brahim, Norman Harry Murdoch, Peter
Francis Underwood, David George Byrne, Margaret
Joyce Lane, Noela Ethyl Johnson, Michael Richard
Clarke and Hubert George Webb appear before the
Federal Court of Australia, Brisbane in the State

of Queensland on the 24th day of June, 1991 at
10.15 o'clock in the forenoon, to show cause why
the following order should not be granted upon
the grounds set forth in the affidavit of Walter
Malcolm Rutherford sworn the 23rd day of May 1991
and filed herein.

(a) That the Respondents perform and observe the
rules of the organization by treating as null
and void and as of no effect resolutions
purportedly carried on 9 May, 1991 by the
Committee of Management of the Queensland
Branch of the organization and purportedly
convicting the Applicant of -
(i) misappropriating…

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.

Continue reading Brahim, J.P. v Ide, D

Details

AGLC: Brahim, J.P. v Ide, D [1991] FCA 334
Case: [1991] FCA 334
Decision Date: 27 May 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Brahim, J.P. v Ide, D, addresses a dispute between various members of the Queensland branch of the National Union of Storeworkers, Packers, Rubber and Allied Workers. The primary applicants, including Jeffrey Phillip Brahim and others, sought to prevent the respondents, including Dennis Ide and Walter Malcolm Rutherford, from occupying the union office and removing union property. The legal issues revolved around the validity of the respondents' removal from office and their authority to control union affairs.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of union rules and the effect of resolutions passed by a general meeting. Justice Pincus examined whether the general meeting had the authority to displace the committee of management, noting that such power could only be granted by the union's rules. The court rejected the argument that the committee's control was provisionally displaced, emphasizing the need for clear rules to justify such a resolution. Consequently, the court ordered that the respondents were not to occupy the union office, remove any property, or obstruct access, while also granting specific access rights to Walter Malcolm Rutherford.

The final orders included preventing the respondents from occupying the union office and removing any property, allowing Walter Malcolm Rutherford access to the office and its contents during ordinary working hours, and requiring the applicants to provide particulars of the relevant union rules by a specified date. Additionally, the court refused to grant further interim relief regarding the use of union funds to publish materials about the proceedings, finding no justification for such an order.

Orders