Edgar v Meade

[1916] HCA 70

flSflwinv

f j ^ l f & d R

^1999^74^

23 G.L.R.]

OF AUSTRALIA.

[H IG H C O U K T O F

A U S T R A L IA .]

E D G A R ............................................................................................ P l a i n t i f f ;

MEADE AND OTHERS . .

D e f e n d a n t s .

WALKER AND OTHERS

P l a i n t i f f s ;

AGAINST

MEADE AND OTHERS

D e f e n d a n t s .

Industrial Arhitraliun— Organization— Buies— Procedure for amendment— Validity— H C

o r A

Beferendum— Members— Branches— Enforcement of rights— Invalid resolution

191(j

fo r expulsion— Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1915

(Ao. 1.1 of 1904— Ao. 35 o f 1915), Part

I .

M e l b o u r n e ,

Practice (High Court)— Costs— Successful 2>laintiff fa iling as to some issues— F ixing

1*^*2 ̂V

amount payable fo r costs.

0, 9.

Tho ru les of an o rg an iza tio n reg is te red u n d e r th e Commonwealth Conciliation

Isaacs J.

and Arbitration Act c rea te d a “ federa l council ” w hose d u tie s w ere

(int:r

alia)

to a d m in is te r tho ru les, to be gu id ed by a n y re fe ren d a of

th e m em bers,

a n d to h e a r a n d d e te rm in e ap p ea ls su b m itte d by branches. T h ey a lso

p ro ­

v id ed th a t th e su p rem e g o v e rn m e n t sh o u ld be a tr ie n n ia l conference,

t h a t all

decisions of th o conference in a lte rin g or am en d in g th e ru les sh o u ld b e su b ­

m itte d to a re fe ren d u m

of all th e m em bers a n d th a t a ll a lte ra tio n s o r a m e n d ­

m en ts ca rried by a m a jo r ity v o te shou ld be b in d in g on a ll m em bers. T h e

ru les, also, b y a ru le dealing spec ia lly w ith “ a m e n d m e n t of ru les ”

(ru le 9)

p ro v id ed th a t all p ro p o sa ls fo r th e a m e n d m en t of ru les sh o u ld be su…