Where by the rules of a friendly society formed under the Friendly Societies Act 1890 (Vict.), it was provided that should a member be adjudged by a tribunal of the society guilty of conduct calculated to bring disgrace on the society he should be expelled, in order to justify expulsion the conduct of which the member is found guilty must be such as may reasonably be regarded as likely to have that result.

Where the rules of a friendly society so formed provide for the constitution of a judicial tribunal to adjudicate upon charges against members, in order to exclude the principle that a man must not be a judge in his own cause an intention to exclude it must appear in the rules either expressly or by necessary implication.

By the rules it was provided that the District Chief Ranger, who was the head of the society, "shall preside at" certain meetings, including those of a certain judicial tribunal constituted by the rules:

Held, that this rule did not require or permit the District Chief Ranger to preside, even formally, on the tribunal on the hearing of a. charge against member in which the District Chief Ranger was in the position of a person complaining of an offence against himself personally.

10 CLR 244

By the direction of the District Executive of a friendly society, of which Executive the District Chief Ranger was a member, a charge was brought against a member of the society of conduct calculated to bring disgrace on the society. The conduct complained of consisted of personal abuse of the District Chief Ranger and other officers of the society. The District Chief Ranger presided at the tribunal which heard the charge, but took no active part in the proceedings. The member was found guilty, and was de facto expelled from the society:

Held, that the whole proceedings were invalid by reason of the presence of the District Chief Ranger on the tribunal, that the expulsion was ineffectual, and that the member was entitled to a declaration.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hodges J.): Dickason v. Edwards, (1909) V.L.R., 403; 31 A.L.T., 55, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The plaintiff, J. E. A. Dickason, was a member of a friendly society in Victoria called the Ancient Order of Foresters of the United Melbourne District, and of a branch or court of that society called the Court Star of the Forest. He brought an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria against H. N. Edwards and the two other trustees of the society, the members of the District Executive of the society, and the trustees of the Court Star of the Forest, alleging that he had been wrongfully and illegally prevented by the society, its officers or members,…

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 Dickason v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Dickason v Edwards [1910] HCA 7
Case: [1910] HCA 7
Decision Date: 24 March 1910

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Dickason, a member of the Ancient Order of Foresters, brought an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the society's trustees and executive officers. He alleged wrongful expulsion from the society and sought a declaration that he remained a member, an injunction to prevent his exclusion, and damages. The dispute arose from a charge of conduct calculated to bring disgrace upon the society, which Mr. Dickason was found guilty of by a tribunal of the society, leading to his de facto expulsion. The Supreme Court dismissed his claim.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the conduct for which Mr. Dickason was found guilty was, as a matter of law, capable of being considered "conduct calculated to bring disgrace on the Order" under the society's rules. Secondly, and more crucially, whether the presence of the District Chief Ranger, who was personally insulted by the conduct in question and had participated in the decision to lay the charge, on the tribunal that heard the charge rendered the proceedings invalid.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, found that the presence of the District Chief Ranger on the tribunal vitiated the proceedings. While the rules of the society did not expressly prohibit him from presiding, the Court held that the fundamental principle of natural justice, that no person should be a judge in their own cause, applied unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded by the rules. The Court found no such exclusion and determined that the District Chief Ranger, being personally aggrieved by the conduct, could reasonably be suspected of bias. His participation, even if he took no active role in the deliberation, meant the tribunal was not properly constituted, rendering the expulsion ineffectual. The Court also noted potential issues with the finality of the expulsion process under the society's rules, but based its decision primarily on the breach of natural justice.

The High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. It declared that Mr. Dickason had not been validly expelled from the society and was entitled to the relief sought, including a declaration of membership and an injunction.

Orders