Medium Neutral Citation: Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51
Hearing dates: 1 April 2022
Date of orders: 5 April 2022
Decision date: 05 April 2022
Before: Basten JA; Leeming JA; Payne JA
Decision:
Dismiss the statement of claim filed on 15 March 2022 in the Equity Division, removed into this Court by order made on 30 March 2022 and remitted by the High Court of Australia on 31 March 2022.

Catchwords:
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – jurisdiction of courts – justiciability – whether party pre-selection process justiciable – application of Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24 – whether statutory provisions create an interest in members allowing Court to enforce procedures under Party Constitution
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – unincorporated political party – pre-selection dispute – where constitution of a party authorises Federal Executive to intervene in the management of a State Division – whether “management” includes “management and control” – whether power to endorse candidates for election is exercise of management function – whether power to endorse candidate subject to Constitution of State Division

Legislation Cited:
Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW), s 26
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1934 (Cth), ss 71, 72A, 72B; Pt XI
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss 4, 4C, 123, 124, 125, 129, 129A, 132, 133, 136, 139, 140, 141, 163, 166, 168, 169, 169B; Pt XI, XIV, XX
Constitution, ss 75, 76, 77
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 39, 40, 44, 78B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16

Cases Cited:
Asmar v Albanese [2022] HCASL 71
Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19
Asmar v Albanese (No 4) [2021] VSC 672
Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10
Butler vMulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24
Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29; [1916] HCA 70
Johnston v The Greens NSW [2019] NSWSC 215
LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575; [1983] HCA 31
Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission (2004) 220 CLR 181; [2004] HCA 41
Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] HCA 9
Setka v Carroll (2019) 58 VR 657; [2019] VSC 571

Texts Cited:
JRS Forbes, Justice in Tribunals (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2019)
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, First Report, September 1983

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Louis Camenzuli (Plaintiff)
The Hon Scott Morrison MP (First Defendant)
Christine McDiven AM (Second Defendant)
The Hon Dominic Perrottet MP (Third Defendant)
The Hon Alex Hawke MP (Fourth Defendant)
The Hon Sussan Ley MP (Fifth Defendant)
Trent Zimmerman MP (Sixth Defendant)
The Hon Philip Ruddock AO (Seventh Defendant)
The Hon John Olsen AO (Eighth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Robertson / A R Langshaw / B May (Plaintiff)
G O'L Reynolds SC / D A Ward (First, Second, Third and Eighth Defendants)
S…

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 Camenzuli v Morrison

Details

AGLC: Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51
Case: [2022] NSWCA 51
Decision Date: 05 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Camenzuli v Morrison* concerned the internal pre-selection process of an unincorporated political party. The applicant, Mr. Camenzuli, sought to challenge the validity of a decision made by the Federal Executive of the party concerning the endorsement of a candidate for election. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the party's pre-selection process was justiciable, meaning whether it was a matter that the courts could properly adjudicate upon. This involved considering the application of the principles established in *Cameron v Hogan* and whether any statutory provisions created an enforceable interest for party members in the procedures outlined in the Party Constitution. Further, the Court had to determine whether the Federal Executive's power to intervene in the management of a State Division, specifically its power to endorse candidates, constituted an exercise of "management" and whether this power was subject to the constitution of the State Division.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the statement of claim. The reasoning likely involved an application of the *Cameron v Hogan* principle, which generally holds that disputes concerning the internal affairs and membership of unincorporated associations, particularly political parties, are not justiciable. The Court would have considered whether the party's constitution or any relevant legislation created a legal right or interest that could be enforced by the courts, or if the dispute remained a matter of internal party governance beyond judicial review. The Court found that the dispute was not justiciable.

The Court ordered the dismissal of the statement of claim filed on 15 March 2022.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the statement of claim filed on 15 March 2022 in the Equity Division, removed into this Court by order made on 30 March 2022 and remitted by the High Court of Australia on 31 March 2022.

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.

Actions

Citations

Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51

Most Recent Citation

Cuthbert v Abbott [2023] QCA 139

Cases Citing This Decision

Gerard Brock Rennick v Benjamin Riley [2024] QSC 130
Citation 1

…0, not followed Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662, cited Camenzuli v Morrison (2022) 107 NSWLR 439; [2022] NSWCA 51, followed Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358, followed Cockman v Gorman (2023) 413 ALR 646; [2023] WASCA 44, considered Donau Pty Ltd v ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd (2019) 101 NSWLR 679; [2019]…
Re Estate of Ahmed Abou-Khalid [2024] NSWSC 253
Citation 2

…ne (1863) LR 3 Eq 1 Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Limited [1938] AC 463 Bryson v Bryant (1992) 29 NSWLR 188 Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51 Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358 Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pensel [1891] AC 531 Dr Warren’s Case (1835) Grindrod’s Compendium, 8th ed 371 Estate…
Cuthbert v Abbott [2023] QCA 139
Citation 3

…that the appellant’s claims were not justiciable – whether the primary judge erred in this finding Camenzuli v Morrison (2022) 107 NSWLR 439; [2022] NSWCA 51, applied Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24, applied Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404; [1983] QSCFC 52, applied Farah C…
Cockman v Gorman [2023] WASCA 44
Citation 4 (Para 2)

…d by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Camenzuli v Morrison .[6] [5] Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19; (2022) 369 FLR 1. [6] Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51; (2022) 107 NSWLR 439.…
Cuthbert v Abbott [2022] QSC 113
Citation 5 (Para 6)

…ameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358. They also cite recent consideration of that decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51, and, in some respects, by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19.…
High Court Bulletin [2022] HCAB 3
Citation 6

…Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2022] NSWCA 51…
Cockman v Gorman [2022] WASC 125
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…candidates’ political affiliations, and the disclosure of expenditure and donations for political parties and candidates. [16] Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51 [23].…
Dawkins v The State Secretary, Australian Labor Party (WA Branch) [No 2] [2022] WASC 117
Citation 8 (Para 11)

…al in Asmar v Albanese [56] and the NSW Court of Appeal in Camenzuli v Morrison .[57] [56] Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19. [57] Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Asmar & Ors v Albanese [2022] HCASL 71
Citation 1 (Para 9)

…2022] VSCA 19 (T Forrest, Whelan JJA, Forbes AJA). 6. On 31 March 2022 the High Court refused special leave to appeal this decision: Asmar v Albanese [2022] HCASL 71. The reasons for the refusal did not include a finding on justiciability, which the leave applicant did not challenge because it was favourable to he…
Ruddick v The Commonwealth [2022] HCA 9
Citation 2 (Para 49)

…he Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, First Report, September 1983, at [3.43]; Mulholland at [2]. 25. [2022] HCA 9 at [6] (Kiefel CJ and Keane J). 26. Both Mulholland and Ruddick challenged the constitutional validity of statutory limits on registration of political parties.…
Camenzuli v Hawke [2022] NSWSC 168
Citation 3 (Para 8)

…ty’s Federal Constitution and the Constitution of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party (Divisional Constitution). 4. Camenzuli v Hawke [2022] NSWSC 168.…
Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19
Citation 4 (Para 9)

…opriate to remove the matter to this Court, so that a full consideration of the reasoning of the Victorian Court of Appeal could be permitted. [6] 5. [2022] VSCA 19 (T Forrest, Whelan JJA, Forbes AJA). 6. On 31 March 2022 the High Court refused special leave to appeal this decision: Asmar v Albanese [2022] HCASL…
Asmar v Albanese (No 4) [2021] VSC 672
Citation 5

…05 (NSW), r 36.16 Cases Cited: Asmar v Albanese [2022] HCASL 71 Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19 Asmar v Albanese (No 4) [2021] VSC 672 Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10 Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662 Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24 Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29; [1916]…
Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571
Citation 6

…nd v Australian Electoral Commission (2004) 220 CLR 181; [2004] HCA 41 Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] HCA 9 Setka v Carroll (2019) 58 VR 657; [2019] VSC 571 Texts Cited: JRS Forbes, Justice in Tribunals (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2019) Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Select Committee on…
Johnston v The Greens NSW [2019] NSWSC 215
Citation 7 (Para 65)

…eron v Hogan was inapplicable. In contrast, the plaintiff accepted that the Federal Constitution of the Liberal Party lacked contractual force. 29. [2019] NSWSC 215 at [18].…
Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662
Citation 8

…[2022] VSCA 19 Asmar v Albanese (No 4) [2021] VSC 672 Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10 Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662 Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24 Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29; [1916] HCA 70 Johnston v The Greens NSW [2019] NSWSC 215 LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Aust…
Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission [2004] HCA 41
Citation 9

…BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575; [1983] HCA 31 Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission (2004) 220 CLR 181; [2004] HCA 41 Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] HCA 9 Setka v Carroll (2019) 58 VR 657; [2019] VSC 571 Texts Cited: JRS Forbes, Justice in Tribunals (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2019…
LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd [1983] HCA 31
Citation 10 (Para 5)

…intervention in the proceedings or removal of the cause to the High Court. 3. See LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575; [1983] HCA 31.…
Cameron v Hogan [1934] HCA 24
Citation 11

…jurisdiction of courts – justiciability – whether party pre-selection process justiciable – application of Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24 – whether statutory provisions create an interest in members allowing Court to enforce procedures under Party Constitution ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – unincorpo…
Edgar v Meade [1916] HCA 70
Citation 12 (Para 34)

…n which a particular association operates. [10] 8. Cameron at 384. 9. Cameron at 372. 10. Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29 at 43 (Isaacs J); [1916] HCA 70; Cameron at 372.…

Legislation Cited

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) 1, 123, 124, 125, 129, 129A, 132, 133, 1...
19 mentions (from Para 3)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) 39, 40, 44, 78B
5 mentions (from Para 3)
Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) 26
2 mentions (from Para 65)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) 56
2 mentions (from Para 4)
Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 41)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) 36.16
1 mention (from Para 85)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51
Hearing dates:	1 April 2022
Date of orders:	5 April 2022
Decision date:	05 April 2022
Before:	Basten JA; Leeming JA; Payne JA
Decision:	Dismiss the statement of claim filed on 15 March 2022 in the Equity Division, removed into this Court by order made on 30 March 2022 and remitted by the High Court of Australia on 31 March 2022.
Catchwords:	ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – jurisdiction of courts – justiciability – whether party pre-selection process justiciable – application of Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24 – whether statutory provisions create an interest in members allowing Court to enforce procedures under Party Constitution ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – unincorporated political party – pre-selection dispute – where constitution of a party authorises Federal Executive to intervene in the management of a State Division – whether “management” includes “management and control” – whether power to endorse candidates for election is exercise of management function – whether power to endorse candidate subject to Constitution of State Division
Legislation Cited:	Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW), s 26 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1934 (Cth), ss 71, 72A, 72B; Pt XI Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss 4, 4C, 123, 124, 125, 129, 129A, 132, 133, 136, 139, 140, 141, 163, 166, 168, 169, 169B; Pt XI, XIV, XX Constitution, ss 75, 76, 77 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 39, 40, 44, 78B Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16
Cases Cited:	Asmar v Albanese [2022] HCASL 71 Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19 Asmar v Albanese (No 4) [2021] VSC 672 Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10 Butler vMulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662 Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24 Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29; [1916] HCA 70 Johnston v The Greens NSW [2019] NSWSC 215 LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575; [1983] HCA 31 Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission (2004) 220 CLR 181; [2004] HCA 41 Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] HCA 9 Setka v Carroll (2019) 58 VR 657; [2019] VSC 571
Texts Cited:	JRS Forbes, Justice in Tribunals (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2019) Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, First Report, September 1983
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Matthew Louis Camenzuli (Plaintiff) The Hon Scott Morrison MP (First Defendant) Christine McDiven AM (Second Defendant) The Hon Dominic Perrottet MP (Third Defendant) The Hon Alex Hawke MP (Fourth Defendant) The Hon Sussan Ley MP (Fifth Defendant) Trent Zimmerman MP (Sixth Defendant) The Hon Philip Ruddock AO (Seventh Defendant) The Hon John Olsen AO (Eighth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: S Robertson / A R Langshaw / B May (Plaintiff) G O'L Reynolds SC / D A Ward (First, Second, Third and Eighth Defendants) S…