Dugmore, John v J.G. Porter and Sons

[1982] FCA 181

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NSW 27 of 1982

)

DIVISION	INDUSTRIAL	1
IN THE MATTER of an application under
s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitratlon Act 1904.
BETWEEN: JOHN DUGMORE

Applicant

AND:J.G. PORTER & ORS . - Respondent>

16 August 1982 EVATT J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 9 August 1977 the Australian Industrial Court in Clark

-v- Printlng and Kindred Industrles Union and Ors. (1977) 15 A.L.R. 71 made a declaration that rr.7 and 10 of ;%e rules of the New South

Wales Branch (the Branch)	of the Prlnting and Klndrfd Industries
Unlon (the organizatlon) contravened s.l40(l)(c)	of the Conciliation

and Arbltration Act (the Act) . In particular, the Court determined

that r.l0(5)(a) requlrlng that a member of the Branch should hold an

O.K. card before working in the industry was unreasonable, unjust and
oppressive; and further that r.l0(5)(d) was Unreasonable and
oppresslve In givlng the Branch Secretary the power I n his dlscretion

to set out in such 0 . K . card any classiflcation he might choose .

indicating the Unlon classlfication of the particular member. Rules

7(g) and (i) were also held to be oppressive and, accordingly,

invalld under S .140(1) (c) and orders were made accordingly.

Subsequent ly both ruLes were de le ted from t h e c e r t l f i e d r u l e s of the

Branch, b u t , a s no declarat ion had then been sought under S .l40 of

the Act I n r e s p e c t of slmilar r u l e s i n t h e r u l e s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t l o n

( the F e d e r a l r u l e s ) , t h o s e simllar f e d e r a l r u l e s s t i l l form p a r t Of

t h e c e r t i f i e d f e d e r a l r u l e s .

On 2 8 A p r i l 1 9 8 2 M r John Dugmore, a member of t h e

o rgan lza t ion a t t ached to the Branch , sough t and was g ran ted a r u l e t o

show cause p u r s u a n t t o s . 1 4 1 of t h e A c t a g a l n s t s e v e r a l p e r s o n a l

respondents w h o the Court understands t o be members of the execu t lve

of the Branch. Such appl icat ion was suppor t ed by an a f f idav i t sworn

by M r Pugmore on 2 8 Apri l 1982.

The r u l e sets o u t t w o maln orders sought by blr Dugmore, and,

a l though lengthy, should be set o u t i n f u l l . The respondents were t o

show cause why o rde r s shou ld no t be made c a l l i n g upon them t o o b s e r v e

and perform the r u l e s o f t he o rgan iza t ion by :

1. The respondents and each of them and t h e l r s e r v a n t s

and agen t s be ing r e s t r a lned from doing o r o m i t t i n g t o

do any act or a c t s t h e e f f e c t of whlch a c t or a c t s o r

omlssion or omissions would be t o make any s ta tement

o r r e p r e s e n t a t l o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t : -

(1) Any member o f t h e New South Wales Branch

of the P r ln t lng and Klndred Indus t r i e s

Union having galned admisslon t o the Unlon

through	one	s e c t l o n o f t h e P r i n t l n g
I n d u s t r y i s n o t e n t i t l e d	t o work	I n any
o t h e r s e c t l o n	of	t h e I n d u s t r y w i t h o u t

having obta ined permiss lon f rom the

Executive of	t h e New	South Wales Branch
of	t h e P r l n t l n g	and Klndred Industr les

Union.

(li) Any member o f t h e N e w South Wales Branch

of t h e P r i n t l n g and Klndred Industr ies

Union wishlng t o a c c e p t employment I n

any sec t lon of t h e T r a d e o t h e r t h a n t h a t

I n which he 1 s r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e B r a n c h

r e c o r d s m u s t f i r s t a p p l y t o	the
Executive of the Branch	for approval .

( i i l ) A n y member o f the New Sou th Wales Branch

o f t he P r ln t ing and Klndred Indus t r l e s

Union who accep t s employment In any

s e c t i o n o f t h e P r i n t i n g T r a d e o t h e r t h a n

I n which h e i s r e g i s t e r e d i n the Branch

r eco rds i s l n e l l g l b l e t o c o n t l n u e h l s

membershlp o f t h e Union.

( l v ) Any member of the Print lng and Kindred

I n d u s t r i e s	Unlon	i s n o t e n t l t l e d	t o
o b t a i n a	]ob	or	p o s i t l o n from any

employer and commence work wl thout

having prevlously obtained an O.K. c a r d .

( v ) Any member o f t h e P r i n t i n g and Kindred

I n d u s t r i e s Union who having obtalned a

]ob or pos i t lon f rom any employer and

commenced work before having obta ined an

O . K . c a rd 1s l i a b l e t o a n y f i n e o r

d i sc lp l ina ry ac t ion unde r the Ru les o f t h e P r i n t l n g and Kindred Industr ies Union.

( V I ) Any member o f t h e P r l n t i n g and Klndred

I n d u s t r i e s Union 1 s n o t e n t i t l e d t o

l eave on employer and commence work f o r

a n o t h e r e m p l o y e r w l t h o u t f i r s t o b t a i n i n g

an O . K . card from t h e P r l n t l n g and

Kindred I n d u s t r i e s Union.

(v l l )Any member of t h e P r i n t l n g and Kindred

I n d u s t r i e s Union who having l e f t one

ernployer and commenced work for another

employer wlthout	f i r s t	obta ln lng an	O . K .
ca rd	from	t h e P r i n t i n g	and Kindred
I n d u s t r i e s	Union	1 s l l a b l e t o any	f i n e
or	d l s c i p l j n a r y a c t l o n u n d e r	the	Rules
of	the	P r i n t l n g	and Kindred Industr ies

Union.

(v l l1)Any member of the Pr ln t ing and Klndred

I n d u s t r l e s Unlon i n the employ of any

employer who f a i l s t o a s k a n o t h e r member

o r non-member	about t o s t a r t work	l n h l s
depa r tmen t i n h i s p l ace o f	employment	t o
p r o v i d e t o h l m t h e O . K .	c a rd of	the

P r ln t ing and Kindred Indus t r l e s o r on

t h e f a i l u r e o f s u c h o t h e r	member	o r
non-member	t o o b t a l n and produce	t o him

such	O . K .	c a r d f a i l s t o n o t l f y	s u c h
f a i l u r e	t o	t h e S e c r e t a r y / T r e a s u r e r	o r

o t h e r o f f i c e r of t h e P r i n t i n g a n d

Klndred Industr les Unlon 1 s l l a b l e t o

a n y f i n e o r d i s c l p l i n a r y a c t i o n u n d e r

the Rules of the Pr ln t ing and Kindred

Industr ies Union.

The second of the two o rde r s ough t i n t h e r u l e t o show

cause r eads a s fo l lows :

2 . The respondents and each them of and their

s e r v a n t s o r a g e n t s be r e s t r a ined f rom t ak ing any

a c t l o n w l t h t h e o b j e c t or e f f e c t of compelling any

m e m b e r of t h e P r i n t l n g and Kindred Industries Union

wishing t o accep t employment t o f i rs t a p p l y t o t h e

P r i n t i n g	and	Klndred	Industr les	Union	or	a n y o f f i c i a l
o r body	of	o f f icers o f	t h e	P r i n t i n g s	and	Klndred

I n d u s t r i e s Union f o r a p p r o v a l o r t o f i r s t o b t a i n a n

O . K .	card	f rom	the	Pr lnt ing	and	Klndred	Industr les
Union.

On t h e g r a n t l n g of t h e r u l e t h e m a t t e r was made r e t u r n a b l e

f o r 5 May 1 9 6 2 f o r d l r e c t i o n s . On t h a t d a t e c e r t a i n d l r e c t i o n s w e r e

made r e q u i r i n g ( i n t e r a l l a ) t h e filing and serv ing of po in ts of claim

b y t h e unnecessary t o s e t them o u t i n f u l l but a p p l l c a n t . P o i n t s of c la im were f i l e d o n 20 May 1962. I t i s

paragraph 4 s e t s o u t f o r m e r

r r . 7 ( g )	and	( i)	and	1 0 ( 5 ) ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) and	( d ) of	t h e r u l e s o f	t h e
Branch.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of t h e s a l d po in t s of c la lm read as

fol lows: -

6. I t is an imp l l ed ru l e o f t he P . K . I . U . t h a t

members and o f f l c e h o l d e r s I n t h e N e w South Wales

Branch of the P . K . I . U . sha l l no t engage i n conduc t of

t h e t y p e d e s c r l b e d i n t h e r u l e s set o u t In paragraph 4

h e r e o f a n d s h a l l n o t s e e k t o e n f o r c e or g i v e e f f e c t t o

t h e r u l e s se t ou t In pa rag raph 4 h e r e o f .

7 . I t 1s implled an r u l e t h e o f P . K . I . U . t h a t

members and o f f i c e h o l d e r s i n t h e N e w South Wales

Branch	of	the	P . K . I . U .	sha l l	no t	engage	i n conduct
wh ich	un lawfu l ly	l n t e r f e r s	w l th	a	member's	r i g h t	t o

o b t a i n employment and pursue h l s c a l l i n g .

P u r s u a n t t o f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n s o f the Court made on 2 1 May

1982 the respondents ' sol ic i tors , Messrs Geoffrey Edwards & Co. by

l e t te r	da ted	2 5	May	1 9 8 2	s o u g h t	f r o m	t h e	a p p l l c a n t ' s	o l l c l t o r s ,
Messrs	Walker	Gibbs	&	Donald	t h e	f o l l o w i n g	f u r t h e r	a n d	b e t t e r

p a r t l c u l a r s o f p a r a . 6 and 7 of the p o m t s of claim:

1. A s p a r a g r a p h t o 6 t h e o f p o i n t s of claim,

p l e a s e s p e c i f y t h e f ac t s , c i r cums tances , ma t t e r s and

r i s e t o t h e i m p l i c a t i o n .

t h i n g s	s a i d t o g i v e
2 .	As t o paragraph 6 o f the p o i n t s o f claim,

p l e a s e	s t a t e	p r e c l s e l y	t h e	terms	o f	t h e	a l l e g e d
Imp1 i e d	r u l e .

3 . A s t o paragraph 7 of t h e p o i n t s c l a i m , o f

p l e a s e s p e c l f y t h e f ac t s , c i r cums tances , ma t t e r s and

t h l n g s s a i d t o g i v e r l s e t o t h e i m p l i c a t l o n .

4. A s t o paragraph 7 o f the p o l n t s of c la im,

p l e a s e s t a t e p r e c i s e l y the terms o f t he a l l e g e d

implled r u l e .

Messrs Walker Glbbs and Donald's reply 1s da ted 1 June 1982

and , omi t t ing formal p a r t s , r e a d s :

We	a r e i n s t r u c t e d t o r e p l y	t o y o u r r e q u e s t f o r f u r t h e r
p a r t l c u l a r s	as	fol lows:

1. The h l s t o r y of t h e r u l e s as s e t o u t i n

t h e p o i n t s	of	c l a i m f i l e d a n d t h e
m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d	t o	i n t h e a f f i d a v l t s

f i l e d b y t h e a p p l l c a n t .

2 . These a re set o u t i n t h e p o l n t s of

claim.

3 . The h i s t o r y of t h e ru les a s s e t o u t i n

t h e p o i n t s o f c l a l m f i l e d a n d t h e

m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d t o I n t h e a f f i d a v l t s

f l l e d b y t h e a p p l l c a n t .

4. The history of the rul es as set - out In

the polnts of clalm filed and the

matters referred to in the affldavits

filed by the applicant.

Certain affidavits were filed on behalf of the applicant

during the latter part of May. These included affidavits by Mr

Coggan Sworn 25 May. Mr Hodson sworn 26 May, Mr Perry sworn 25 May,

Mr Senior sworn 21 May and Mr Sammut sworn 19 May. Further

affidavlts have been flled by both parties hereln but were not tendered or referred to the Court on the hearlng of the present motion.

On 17 June 1982 by notice of motion the respondents moved for orders pursuant to Orders 10 and 29 of the Federal Court Rules that: -

1.      The following questions be decided separately

from any other questions In these proceedings, before

any trial or further trlal In the proceedings:

a) whether the points of claim filed by the

appllcant in these proceedings and the

particulars thereof provided	by the
applicant by letter dated	1 June 1982

dlsclose any reasonable cause of action

pursuant to sectlon 141 of the

Conciliatlon and Arbltration Act, 1904:

b)	whether there 1s any implied rule in the rules of the Printing and Kindred
Industries Union to the effect of and as
alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the

polnts of clalm filed by the appllcant

in these proceedlngs :
c)	whether, in the absence of any relevant express rule and If there 1 s no lmplled
rule as alleged In paragraphs 6 and 7 of
the polnts of claim filed by the applicant, the Court has any ~urlsdiction to make orders pursuant o sectlon 141 of the Concillation and Arbltration Act, 1904 restraining any conduct alleged on the part of the
respondents in the points of claim flled

by the applicant.

d) whether the points of claim filed by the
applicant and the particulars glven
thereof provide any basls in law for the
orders sought by the applicant in these
proceedings.

The motion was made returnable on 21 June 1982 and came on

for hearing before the Court as presently constituted on 26 July

1982.

On 23 July 1982 Messrs Walker Gibbs & Donald wrote to the

respondents‘ solicitors In the following terms:-

“So that your cllents wlll be under	o misapprehension
about one branch	of the argument which wlll be put
against them, we propose to amend the polnts	of clalm

by addlng a paragraph 7A in the followiing terms:

7A. Further, or In the alternative, since the

9th August 1977 the respondents and each

of them have purported to enforce and

are continuing to enforce on behalf of

the New South Wales Branch of the PKIU a pollcy which 1 s In the terms identlcal

with the provlslons of the rules set

out in paragraph 4 herein.

The additional paragraph makes expliclt what is already impllcit in the points of claim.”

When the motion was called on for hearing Mr McHugh of

Queen’s Counsel with Mr Holmes appeared for	the applicant	(the
respondent to the motlon) and Mr Ryan	of Queen’	S Counsel with Fir J.

Shaw appeared for the respondents (the applicants to the motlon).

Mr McAugh m his opening to the Court stated that there were

quite a number of affldavlts filed by members of the Branch Of the organizatlon and such affldavlts show that “a number of people have

said by reason of the policy,“ whlch is to be referred to, “they have

been d r i v e n o u t of the industry and cannot obtain employment , and so

on ." He went on t o s t a t e :

The n a t u r e of t h e c a s e made i n t h o s e a f f i d a v i t s i s t o

t h e e f f e c t	t h a t	t h e r e	i s	a	p o l i c y	o r	a n	i m p l l e d	r u l e
o f	t h e	N e w	South	Wales	branch	of	the	union	whrrhlch

requlres , amongst other t h i n g s , p e o p l e t o o b t a l n a n OK

card before they can move from o n e s e c t i o n of t h e

l n d u s t r y t o a n o t h e r , n o t w l t h s t a n d l n g the f a c t t h e y are

union members. The gravamen of many of the compla in ts

1s tha t they c a n n o t o b t a i n or have been re fused the OK

cards . Because It i s lmpossible t o o b t a i n employment

I n t h e i r s e c t l o n of the indus t ry they canno t move i n t o

any	o the r	s ec t ion	of	t h e	p r l n t i n g	l n d u s t r y	and	they
have been l aboure r s , and ma t t e r s o f	d r iven	ou t	of	it.	People	are	worklng	as

tha t n a t u r e .

Af te r deve loplng h i s a rguments , M r McHugh submit ted as

follows:

In ou r submiss ion , even i f t he re i s some agreed term

about using an OK c a r d t h e r e is c e r t a l n l y n o t h i n g

which would enable the organlzat ion t o d e a l w i t h

peop le the way they have been dea l ing wi th them. When

one looks a t what t h i s C o u r t d l d i n r e s p e c t o f t h a t

system ---

and t h e r e of cour se , Mr McHugh was r e f e r r i n g t o t h e d e c i s l o n i n

Clark -v- P K I U ( s u p r a . ) , a d e c l s l o n of t h e A u s t r a l l a n I n d u s t r i a l

Cour t , the forerunner t o the Fede ra l Cour t -

---it 1 s one of the f a c t s and c i rcumstances which in

our submission gives rise t o an Implied term i n t h e s e

r u l e s t h a t the unlon w i l l no t en fo rce the system. I t

would	be	an ex t r ao rd lna ry	r e su l t	I	f	one	day	the Cour t
d e c l a r e s	r u l e s	l n v a l l d	and	t h e	n e x t	day	the	un ion

c a r r l e s o u t the ( s t a t e d o b ~ e c t o f t hose ) r u l e s by way

of a p o l i c y .

H e f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t o n c e the Court makes a d e c l a r a t l o n

t h a t s u c h f o l l o w s t h a t a r u l e i s vo id and con t r a ry t o l aw , It a u t o m a t l c a l l y

t h e r e 1 s an implied r u l e w i t h t h e e f f e c t - t h a t t h e u n l o n

w i l l not seek t o c a r r y o u t a p o l i c y w h l c h t h i s C o u r t h a s d e c l a r e d t o

b e c o n t r a r y t o s.140 of the Ac t .

M r Ryan submi t t ed t ha t an app l l can t s eek lng orders unde r

s.141 of the Act must show some s p e c i f i c a c t o r o m i s s l o n e i t h e r

a c t u a l or threatened which i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e x p r e s s or implied

r u l e s of the o r g a n l z a t i o n . H e f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t what was be ing

sought I n t h e p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t l o n b y M r Dugmore was n o t a r e s t r a i n t

on the impos i t ion o f any pena l ty , b u t a n o r d e r r e s t r a i n i n g the

r e s p o n d e n t s f r o m d o l n g o r a i m i n g t o d o a n y a c t o r a c t s t h e e f f e c t of

which would be t o make a n y s t a t e m e n t o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o a

p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t .

He then made a de ta l l ed examina t ion of e a c h p a r t l c u l a r

m a t t e r	e f e r r e d	t o	i n	t h e	e i g h t	p a r a g r a p h s	o u g h t	u n d e r	t h e	f lrst
o r d e r	i n	the	r u l e t o	show	cause	g ran ted	here ln	and	s u b m l t t e d	t h a t

what	t h e a p p l i c a n t	w a s p u t t i n g was	s i m p l y t h a t	it	was	u l t r a v i r e s f o r
the	r e s p o n d e n t s t o	act	i n	t h e	manner	desc r lbed In the ru l e s wh ich had

been dec l a red i nva l id i n Clark -v- P K I U ( s u p r a . ) and t h a t , h a v i n g

regard t o t h e r u l e n l s i a s l s s u e d t h a t m u s t mean t h a t It i s u l t r a

v i r e s f o r r e p r e s e n t a t l o n a n y o n e o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o make any s ta tement or

t o t h e e f f e c t s e t o u t i n any paragraph of the f i rs t

order sought .

After submlsslons regarding the p r inc ip l e s o f l aw app l i cab le

t o t h e i m p l i c a t l o n o f terms l n t o a c o n t r a c t , M r Ryan went on t o

s u b m i t that : “Whatever , l f anyth ing , i s t o be implied from the maklng

of t h e o r d e r b y the I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t i n 1 9 7 7 I n C l a r k ‘ s c a s e , i t i s

n o t t h a t implied t h e u s e o f OK c a r d s was t h e r e a f t e r prohibited. Such a n

term would c o n t r a d i c t a n e x p r e s s p r o v l s l o n of t h e r u l e s of

. .

10.

t h e Union	( t h a t i s , t h e	f e d e r a l	r u l e s ) . "	In	e s sence	his	argument	was
t h a t	if t h e r e	i s no	implied	r u l e i n one	or	o t h e r of	the	forms

contended for by t h e a p p l i c a n t . t h e r e i s no j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the Court

under S. 141.

Fur ther , he d i sputed what M r McHugh had put, namely, tha t

once a Cour t vo ids ru les such as the former Branch rules 7 and 10,

t hen it a u t o m a t i c a l l y f o l l o w s t h a t t h e r e i s an implied r u l e that the

pol lcy ev lnced by such a r u l e would no t con t inue t o be implemented,

subml t t lng tha t s.141 of t he Ac t 1s concerned about ru les of

o rgan lza t lons ,	no t	abou t	po l i cy	and	t ha t	p rov ided	no th rng	i s	done
whlch	contravenes	any	expressed	or	i m p l l e d	r u l e	t h e	u n i o n	o f f i c l a l s

remain a t l i b e r t y , o r i t s members i n Annual Conference o r General

Meeting, remaln a t l i b e r t y t o a r t i c u l a t e s u c h p o l i c y a s t h e y t h i n k

best s u l t s t h e l r o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h e i r I n d u s t r y .

I n r e p l y Mr McHugh s t a t e d ( i n t e r a l l a ) :

Once t h e C o u r t h a s " h e l d t h a t h e r u l e s were void,

there were one of two consequences : e i t he r t he re w a s

no power i n t h e r u l e s t o d o It; t h a t i s , t o en fo rce

the system which w a s t h e m a t t e r of t h e c o m p l a i n t i n

C l a r k ' s	c a s e	( s u p r a . )	a n d	t h e r e f o r e ,	t o	d o	it	w a s
a c t l n g	u l t r a	v l r e s ,	o r	t h e r e	was	an	impl led	t e r m
a r i s lng	f rom	tha t	c i r cums tance	and	f rom	the	res t	o f

t h e r u l e s t h a t you could not do it I n t h a t way.

E l t h e r way, your Honour, it makes no d l f f e r e n c e t o u s .

If t h e r e i s an implled r u l e i n t e rms , w e could enforce

it i n terms of s.141. I f t h e r e 1 s no implled term b u t

slmply no a u t h o r i t y t o do It , t h e n p e o p l e a r e a c t i n g

i n t h e u n i o n ' s a f f a l r s w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y , d o l n g a c t s ,

making s t a t emen t s no t as p r l v a t e l n d l v l d u a l s b u t , i n

the c a s e o f the unlon' S a c t i v l t i e s , w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y ,

pass lng r e s o l u t i o n s w i t h o u t a u t h o r l t y t o d o It . I t is

t h o s e	f a c t s	a n d	t h o s e	a c t l v l t l e s	a n d	t h o s e	s t a t e m e n t s
and	r ep resen ta t ions	wh lch	t	i s	C o u r t	c a n	p r o h l b i t

being done. "

The Court hen polnted out t o M r NcIIugh t h a t t h e r e was no

evidence b e f o r e t h e C o u r t In r e s p e c t of t h e p a s s i n g of r e s o l u t i o n s a s

s ta ted by h im.

M r McHugh r e p l l e d :

"Not a t t h l s s t a g e b e c a u s e t h e y ( t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ) a r e

t o summarily de te rmlne t he who le ac t ion . What

t r y l n g

1s s a i d i n t h i s c a s e i s : You should be s e n t from t h e

j u d g m e n t s e a t s i n e d i e : t h a t y o u l o o k a t t h e

p a r t i c u l a r s of c la im - and it was t r e a t e d i n t h e s e

p r o c e e d i n g s a s p o i n t s of c la im, no t a s t a t emen t of

claim - as though one were d e a l l n g w i t h a s p e c l a l

demurrer In the t i m e o f Baron Parke."

The p r e s e n t c a s e r a i s e s i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s o f t h e C o u r t ' s

powers under s .141 of the Act. I t a l s o raises t h e q u e s t i o n of

implied r u l e s of an o rgan lza t ion - a q u e s t i o n r e l a t e d t o complex

q u e s t i o n s	o f	l a w	d e a l i n g	w l t h	t h e	i m p l l c a t i o n	of	terms	i n t o	a
con t r ac t .	Th i s	ques t lon	has	been	r e c e n t l y	r e f e r r e d	t o	b y	t h e	High

C o u r t o f A u s t r a l i a i n t h e m a t t e r of Codelfa -v- S t a t e R a i l A u t h o r l t y

of N e w South Wales (judgment handed down on 11 May t h i s y e a r ) . The

ques t ion has a l so fo rmed pa r t of t h e o p i n i o n of t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l i n

r e c e n t y e a r s i n B . P . Refinery (Viesternport) Pty. Ltd. -v- Hast lngs

S h i r e C o u n c l l (1978) 52 A . L . J . R . 20. The A u s t r a l l a n I n d u s t r l a l C o u r t

cons lde red the ques t ion o f imp l i ed terms i n r u l e s of organizations i n

Gordon -v- Car ro l l (1975) 2 7 F.L.R. 129. Further , the High C o u r t h a s

r e c e n t l y d e a l t w i t h t h e powers o f t h e C o u r t pu r suan t t o s .141 of t h e

A c t In t h e c a s e of The Queen -- v Joske & O r s . E x p a r t e Shop

Dls t r lbu t ive and Al l ied EmFloyees ' Assoc ia t ion & O r s . (1976) 135

C . L . R . 194 ( p a r t i c u l a r l y l ? p.207/8 and p .212) whils t a Fu l l Cour t o f

t h i s Cour t has de t e rmined t ha t he C o u r t has discretionary powers

under s .141 as amended by s . 18 of Act No.108 of 1977 commenclng 1

1        .

1 2 .

December 1978 (see Cook & O r s . -v- Crawford & Ors.(]udgment 7 J u l y

1982)	and	Barret t -v-	Opi tz 70	C.L.R.141	@	p.162-3	considering	s . 5 8 E
of t h e i n t o f o r c e	A c t	( t h e p r e c u r s o r o f	S . l 41	before	the	amendments	which	came

1 December 1978) .

In t h e I n d u s t r i a l D i v i s i o n of the Federa l C o u r t it has been

t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e C o u r t t o d i r e c t t h a t p o l n t s o f c l a m a n d p o i n t s

Of d e f e n c e b e f i l e d i n a n y matter brought under ss.140 or 141 of t h e

Act. Such polnts of claim o r d e f e n c e h a v e n o t t o my knowledge ever

been t r ea t ed by t he Cour t as s t r ic t pleadings and no d o u b t t h a t

p r a c t l c e formed t h e b a s i s for M r McHugh' S remarks re Baron Parke

which have been referred t o e a r l i e r h e r e l n .

Having glven the matter deep cons lde ra t ion , I a m of the view

t h a t It would be unsafe t o r u l e on t h e m a t t e r s r a i s e d I n t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s a t this s t a g e and the p roceed ings hou ld , i n my vlew,

proceed in the normal way t o a l l o w t h e e v l d e n c e t o b e d e v e l o p e d I n

fu l l . . There a re obvlous ly ques t lons fac t o f which s ould be

determined which may a f f e c t t h e C o u r t ' s f l n a l v i e w of t h e m a t t e r . I n

a l l t h e c l r c u m s t a n c e s I a m a lso of the v iew it would be b e t t e r t h a t

t h e C o u r t d o e s n o t a t p r e s e n t e x p r e s s a f i n a l v i e w as t o t h e

p r i n c i p l e s o f	l a w	t o b e a p p l i e d	t o	t h e	f a c t s a s m i g h t e v e n t u a l l y b e
found.

Accordingly. ln t h e e x e r c l s e of the d l s c r e t l o n v e s t e d i n the

C o u r t , the respondents ' mot ion da ted 1 7 June 1982 fo r f i na l o rde r s

should be d ismlssed .

' I