Cuthbert v Abbott

Case [2022] QSC 113

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cuthbert v Abbott & Ors [2022] QSC 113

PARTIES:

SHANE CRAIG CUTHBERT

(Applicant)

v
SHARON ABBOTT & OTHERS

(First to Twenty-eighth Respondents)

FILE NO/S:

C88 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2022 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2022

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.          The application filed on 29 April 2022 is dismissed.

2.          The proceeding commenced on 16 February 2022 is dismissed.

3.          The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS - EXPLUSION, SUSPENSION AND DISQUALIFICATION - EXERCISE OF POWER - DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE GENERALLY - where the applicant applied for membership of The Australian Labor Party - where the Administrative Committee reviewed the applicant’s membership - where the applicant was rejected as a member of the party - where the applicant alleged that the Administrative Committee failed to comply with the rules of  The Australian Labor Party and failed to afford the applicant natural justice - whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim - whether the court would exercise its jurisdiction, as a matter of discretion, to grant the applicant any relief.

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited
Asmar v Albanese [2022] VSCA 19, followed
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596, cited
Australian Football League v Carlton Football Club Ltd [1998] 2 VR 546, cited
Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10, not followed
Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353, cited
Camenzuli v Morrison [2022] NSWCA 51, followed
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358, applied
Carter v NSW Netball Association [2004] NSWSA 737, distinguished
Dawkins v The State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party (WA Branch) [2022] WASC 117, cited
Eastham v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd [1964] Ch 413, cited
Echunga Football Club Inc v Hills Football League Inc [2014] SASC 201, cited
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Church Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95, followed
Fisher v Keane [1878] 11 ChD 353, not followed
Greig v Insole [1978] 1 WLR 302, cited
Harrington v Coote (2013) 19 SASR 152, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

D Quinn (sol) appeared for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The applicant acted on his own behalf
Holding Redlich for the respondents

  1. On 1 October 2020, the applicant Shane Craig Cuthbert applied for membership of The Australian Labor Party (ALP).  His application was accepted by the Administrative Committee of the Queensland branch of the ALP.  Later, the Administrative Committee reviewed or reconsidered Mr Cuthbert’s membership and resolved to reject him as a member of the party. 

  2. On 16 February 2022, Mr Cuthbert commenced this proceeding by filing an originating application, naming the ALP as the respondent.  Mr Cuthbert alleges the Administrative Committee has failed to comply with the…

Continue reading Cuthbert v Abbott

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cuthbert v Abbott [2022] QSC 113
Case
[2022] QSC 113
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cuthbert v Abbott involved the applicant, Mr Cuthbert, who had applied for membership in The Australian Labor Party (ALP). After his application was reviewed by the ALP’s Administrative Committee, it was rejected. Mr Cuthbert brought a claim against the ALP and its Administrative Committee, alleging that the committee failed to comply with the ALP’s rules and denied him natural justice during the review process. The central legal issues before the court were whether the court had jurisdiction to hear Mr Cuthbert’s claim and, if so, whether it would exercise its discretion to grant him any relief.

The court found that the ALP, as a voluntary association, had the right to self-determine its procedures and internal conduct, as affirmed by the 1955 National Conference. It concluded that Mr Cuthbert's claim concerning the internal conduct of the ALP was not justiciable, meaning the court could not intervene. The court did not need to decide whether, in the absence of a legal right, it should decline to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the party’s internal dispute resolution procedures. However, if Mr Cuthbert's claim had been justiciable, there might have been discretionary grounds for the court to intervene, but this could only be determined after relevant factual controversies were resolved.

The court dismissed Mr Cuthbert's claim and the proceeding he had brought against the ALP and its Administrative Committee. It also dismissed his application to further amend the originating application and ordered him to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding. No submissions were made to the contrary.

ORDERS:
1. The application filed on 29 April 2022 is dismissed.
2. The proceeding commenced on 16 February 2022 is dismissed.
3. The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1. The application filed on 29 April 2022 is dismissed.

2. The proceeding commenced on 16 February 2022 is dismissed.

3. The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

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

According to its constituent documents, the ALP remains such a voluntary association in this traditional sense. It has insisted upon self-determination of its own procedures and its own business, as the 1955 National Conference confirmed. Its members are to trust one another to comply with their common rules. Conclusion Mr Cuthbert’s claim about the internal conduct of the ALP is not justiciable. It is unnecessary to decide whether, in the absence of any legal right, the court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction, and leave Mr Cuthbert to the party’s internal dispute resolution procedures. If Mr Cuthbert’s claim was justiciable, then there may be discretionary grounds to do so, as the respondents contend. Such a decision could not be made until relevant factual controversies were resolved. Disposition The proceeding brought by Mr Cuthbert should be dismissed, including his application to further amend the originating application. Costs should follow the event. No submissions to the contrary was put.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.