CITATION:

Galt & Anor v Flegg & Anor [2003] QSC 290

PARTIES:

Russell James Galt & Anor

(applicant)

v

Bruce Flegg & Anor

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 6710 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 august 2003

JUDGE:

Moynihan SJA

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTY – MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING ELIGIBILITY - Where unincorporated association a political party registered under Federal and State electoral legislation – Where dispute as to interpretation and meaning of rules with regard to entitlement of eligible preselectors to vote at a preselection plebiscite – Whether dispute is justiciable - Whether applicant is a person aggrieved by the challenged decision.

Legislation Cited

Trademark Act 1955 (Cth)

Cases Cited

Baker v The Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division) (1997) 68 SASR 366

Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10

Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358

Clarke v Australian Labour Party (1999) 74 SASR 109

Colonial Gold Reef Ltd v Free State Rand Ltd [1913] 1 Ch 382

Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen [1990] 170 CLR 394

Hunter Douglas Australia Pty Ltd v Perma Blinds (1970) 122 CLR 49

J N Taylor Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Bond FC (1993) 59 SASR 432

Jones & Others v Assef [1975] 2 NSWLR 13

Re Ferro Constructions Pty Ltd (1976) 2 ACLR 18

Remfrey and Aloha Shangri-La Atlas Cruises Pty Ltd [1968] QWN 44

Robinson v ATSIC (1996) 140 ALR 641

Wall v Exchange Investment Corporation Limited [1926] 1 Ch 143

Wall v London and Northern Assets Corporation [1899] 1Ch 550

COUNSEL:

Mr W. Sofronoff Q.C. with Mr G.C. Newton for the First Applicant

Mr P.D.T. Applegarth S.C. with Mr P.A. Hastie for the First Respondent

Mr N.H. Ferrett for the Second Respondent William Hartigan

Mr P.J. Dunning for the Second Respondents Quinn, De Wit and Cashman

Mr R.T. Gaven (solicitor) for 23 Second Respondents

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the First Applicant

Paul Everingham & Co for the First Respondent

Keys Lawyers for the Second Respondent Hartigan

Prentice & Co for the Second Respondents Quinn, De Wit and Cashman

Clayton Utz for 23 Second Respondents

The Applicants seek declarations that the First Respondent (Flegg) has not been endorsed as the Liberal Party of Australia (Queensland Division) (the party) candidate for the State seat of Moggill and that a preselection plebiscite held on 12 April 2003 (the plebiscite) selecting him as the Liberal Party candidate for the seat is void.

The First Applicant (Galt) is a member of the party. He was an unsuccessful candidate for preselection for Moggill in the plebiscite. The Second Applicant (Watson) is a member of the party and chairman of its Fig Tree Pocket/Chapel Hill branch. He was eligible to vote…

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 Galt v Flegg

Details

AGLC: Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290
Case: [2003] QSC 290
Decision Date: 4 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Galt v Flegg involved a dispute over the eligibility of members to vote in a preselection plebiscite for an unregistered political party, registered under both federal and state electoral legislation. The applicant, Galt, sought a declaration that they were eligible to vote and sought an order for the respondents to conduct the plebiscite in accordance with the rules, which they interpreted to allow all eligible preselectors to vote. The respondents, Flegg and others, argued that Galt was not eligible to vote in the plebiscite. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the dispute over the interpretation and meaning of the rules governing eligibility to vote in the plebiscite was justiciable, and whether the applicant was a person aggrieved by the decision. The respondents argued that the dispute was not justiciable as it involved internal matters of an unincorporated association. The court had to consider the nature of the dispute, the status of the association, and the legal standing of the applicant.

The court found that the dispute was justiciable and that Galt was a person aggrieved by the decision. The court held that the rules of the association were clear and unambiguous, and that Galt was eligible to vote in the plebiscite. However, the court declined to make the declarations sought by Galt, finding that the matter was more appropriately resolved by the association in accordance with its rules. The court dismissed the application.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed. The court did not make any declarations as sought by the applicant, nor did it order the respondents to conduct the plebiscite in a particular way. The court found that the matter was one for the association to resolve in accordance with its rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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

Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290

Most Recent Citation

Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662

Cases Citing This Decision

Dawkins v The State Secretary, Australian Labor Party (WA Branch) [No 2] [2022] WASC 117
Citation 1 (Para 7)

…(2007) 212 FLR 271; Thornley v Heffernan (unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, Brownie J, 25 July 1995); Tucker v MacDonald [2001] QSC 296; Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290. [45] Baldwin v Everingham (1993) 1 Qd R 10. [46] Baldwin v Everingham (1993) 1 Qd R 10, 20.…
Camenzuli v Hawke [2022] NSWSC 168
Citation 2 (Para 7)

…n J); Thornley v Heffernan (unreported, 25 July 1995, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Brownie J); Tucker v Macdonald [2001] QSC 296; Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290; Coleman v Liberal Party of New South Wales Division (No 2) (2007) 212 FLR 271; [2007] NSWSC 736 ( Coleman (No 2) ); Fennell v Brough [2008] QSC 166; B…
Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…ese cases the issue of justiciability was the subject of a concession or not argued. [86] Tucker v MacDonald [2001] QSC 296, 18 (Muir J); Galt v Fleg [2003] QSC 290, [10] (Moynihan SJA); Burston v Oldfield [2003] NSWSC 88, [8] (Hamilton J); Fennell v Brough [2008] QSC 166 (Martin J); Greene v McIver (2012) 263 FL…
Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…2 FLR 271; Thornley v Heffernan (unreported, Supreme Court, NSW, Brownie J, 25 July 1995); Tucker v MacDonald [2001] QSC 296 and Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290 (Moynihan SJA).…
Greene v McIver [2012] QSC 181
Citation 5

…ssioners (1949) 78 CLR 62, cited. Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29; [1916] HCA 70, cited. Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290, not followed. George Fischer (Great Britain) Ltd v Multi Construction Ltd [1995] 1 BCLC 260, cited. Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138; [1999] HCA 47, discussed COUNSEL: P A Hastie for t…
Aplin on behalf of the Waanyi Peoples v State of Queensland [2010] FCA 625
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…rples v O’Shea (unreported, 18 August 1999, Supreme Court of Queensland per Atkinson J); Tucker v Macdonald [2001] QSC 296 per Muir J; Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290 per Moynihan SJA; and Coleman v Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales Division (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 736 per Palmer J.…
Coleman v Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales Division (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 736
Citation 7

…of Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2003) 52 ATR 120 - Flynn v University of Sydney [1971] 1 NSWLR 857 - Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290 - Grogan v McKinnon [1973] 2 NSWLR 290 - McKinnon v Grogan [1974] 1 NSWLR 295 - McLean v McKinlay [2004] WASC 2 - Makin v Gallagher [1974] 2 NSWLR 559 - Nilant v Macchia (…
Flegg and Commissioner of Taxation [2007] AATA 1336
Citation 8

…“in contesting an election” Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 s 25-60(1) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 s 74(1) Galt & Anor v Flegg & Ors [2003] QSC 290 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wilcox (1982) 63 FLR 210 Case N80 81 ATC 408 Lunney v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1958) 100 CLR 478 W. Nevill & Co. Ltd. v…
MTQ Holdings Pty Ltd v RCR Tomlinson Ltd [2006] WASC 96
Citation 9 (Para 2)

…2 ACLR 18. It has been consistently held that such a provision is conclusive if the power was exercised bona fide even if mistakenly: Galt v Flegg [2003] QSC 290 at [34].…
Isaac v Nannelli [2004] NSWADT 233
Citation 10

…ontrol Investments Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1980) 50 FLR 1; Childs v Crompton [2003] 2 Qd R 26; Galt and Anor v Flegg and Anor [2003] QSC 290; Re Marine World Victoria Ltd and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (1986) 10 ALD 262; Re Scott and Secretary, Department of Social Securit…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Baker v The Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division) [1997] SASC 6015
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…Clarke’s exclusion from membership had consequences specifically affecting him. See also Baker v The Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division) (1997) 68 SASR 366. In my view Watson does not have standing to bring the application.…
Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990] HCA 39
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…That being so, in my view the learning in respect of the concept of waiver canvassed in such cases as the Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen [1990] 170 CLR 394 is irrelevant in this case. So too are issues such as the state of the Applicants’ knowledge of the matters complained of. For the same reason, it is…
Hunter Douglas Australia Pty Ltd v Perma Blinds [1970] HCA 63
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…In Hunter Douglas Australia Pty Ltd v Perma Blinds (1970) 122 CLR 49 the High Court (Kitto J at first instance and then on appeal from his decision) considered s 53(2) of the Trademark Act 1955 (Cth). This “deemed for the purposes of the Act” that the date of lodgement of an application for registration of a tradema…
Cameron v Hogan [1934] HCA 24
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…It was held in Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358 that someone wishing to challenge on the basis of a breach of the rules of an unincorporated association is required to demonstrate a proprietary right or interest in the property of the association to be able to sue.…
[1999] SASC 365 [1999] SASC 365
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…e recognition of the role of political parties in the electoral process; e.g. Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10, Clarke v Australian Labour Party (1999) 74 SASR 109 and the cases cited at p 127 of that judgment. I did not understand this particular issue to be in issue in the proceedings and it is unnecessary to…

Legislation Cited

Electoral Act 1992 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Galt & Anor v Flegg & Anor [2003] QSC 290
PARTIES:	Russell James Galt & Anor (applicant) v Bruce Flegg & Anor (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 6710 of 2003
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 august 2003
JUDGE:	Moynihan SJA
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTY – MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING ELIGIBILITY - Where unincorporated association a political party registered under Federal and State electoral legislation – Where dispute as to interpretation and meaning of rules with regard to entitlement of eligible preselectors to vote at a preselection plebiscite – Whether dispute is justiciable - Whether applicant is a person aggrieved by the challenged decision. *Legislation Cited* Trademark Act 1955 (Cth) *Cases Cited* Baker v The Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division) (1997) 68 SASR 366 Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10 Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358 Clarke v Australian Labour Party (1999) 74 SASR 109 Colonial Gold Reef Ltd v Free State Rand Ltd [1913] 1 Ch 382 Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen [1990] 170 CLR 394 Hunter Douglas Australia Pty Ltd v Perma Blinds (1970) 122 CLR 49 J N Taylor Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Bond FC (1993) 59 SASR 432 Jones & Others v Assef [1975] 2 NSWLR 13 Re Ferro Constructions Pty Ltd (1976) 2 ACLR 18 Remfrey and Aloha Shangri-La Atlas Cruises Pty Ltd [1968] QWN 44 Robinson v ATSIC (1996) 140 ALR 641 Wall v Exchange Investment Corporation Limited [1926] 1 Ch 143 Wall v London and Northern Assets Corporation [1899] 1Ch 550
COUNSEL:	Mr W. Sofronoff Q.C. with Mr G.C. Newton for the First Applicant Mr P.D.T. Applegarth S.C. with Mr P.A. Hastie for the First Respondent Mr N.H. Ferrett for the Second Respondent William Hartigan Mr P.J. Dunning for the Second Respondents Quinn, De Wit and Cashman Mr R.T. Gaven (solicitor) for 23 Second Respondents
SOLICITORS:	Minter Ellison for the First Applicant Paul Everingham & Co for the First Respondent Keys Lawyers for the Second Respondent Hartigan Prentice & Co for the Second Respondents Quinn, De Wit and Cashman Clayton Utz for 23 Second Respondents