Gray, Rodney John v Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union
[1998] FCA 616
•4 JUNE 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
INDUSTRIAL LAW - registered organisation - registered organisation an amalgamated organisation pursuant to Division 7 Part IX of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”) - application for ballot for withdrawal from amalgamation (“disamalgamation application”) made by committee of management of constituent part of amalgamated organisation pursuant to Division 7A Part IX of Act - whether disamalgamation application made by committee of management or by persons who were members of committee of management - whether only members of committee of management who voted in favour of disamalgamation application could be applicants in proceeding - applicant sought to amend disamalgamation application - whether amendment to disamalgamation application could be authorised by a committee of management differently constituted to the committee of management which authorised initial disamalgamation application - whether ratification of amendment to disamalgamation application could be effected by a committee of management differently constituted to a committee of management which authorised amendment - whether disamalgamation application complies with particulars required by s 253ZJ (4) of the Act and r 98J and Form 11A of the Workplace Relations Regulations.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss 253ZJ, 253ZJA, 253ZH, 253ZI, 253ZL, 253ZV
Workplace Relations Regulations, r 98J, r 98JA Form 11A
Re Food Preservers’ Union of Australia (1988) 79 ALR 138, referred to
Re Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union: ex parte W J Deane and Sons Pty Ltd (1994) 181 CLR 539, referred to
R v Sweeney; Ex Parte Northwest Exports Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 259, referred to
RODNEY JOHN GRAY v AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION
VI 1294 OF 1997
MARSHALL J
MELBOURNE
4 JUNE 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VI 1294 of 1997
BETWEEN:
RODNEY JOHN GRAY
APPLICANTAND:
AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application be dismissed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VI 1294 of 1997
BETWEEN:
RODNEY JOHN GRAY
APPLICANTAND:
AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MARSHALL J
DATE:
4 JUNE 1998
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 19 March 1997 the applicant, Rodney John Gray filed in the Victoria District Registry of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia (“IRCA”) an application pursuant to s 253ZJ of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”). Mr Gray is the Section Secretary - Treasurer of the Baking Section (“the Baking Section”) of the Miscellaneous Workers Division (“the Division”), Victorian Branch (“the Branch”) of the respondent, the Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (“the Union”). The Union is an organisation of employees registered pursuant to the Act.
THE LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Section 253ZJ of the Act is found within Division 7A of Part IX of the Act. Part IX of the Act deals with the regulation of organisations registered under the Act. Division 7A of Part IX of the Act was inserted into the Act with effect from 31 December 1996 by Item 21 of Schedule 14 to the Workplace Relations and other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (“the 1996 Amendment Act”).
Section 253ZH of the Act specifies the object of Division 7A in the following terms:
“The object of this Division is to provide for:
(a)certain organisations that have taken part in amalgamations under Division 7 to be reconstituted and re-registered; and
(b)branches of organisations of that kind to be formed into organisations and registered;
in a way that is fair to the members of the organisations concerned and the creditors of those organisations.”
Division 7 of Part IX of the Act provides for certain procedures to be followed to effect an amalgamation between organisations. It can be seen that the object of Division 7A is to permit certain amalgamations effected under Division 7 to be “undone” by the process provided in Division 7A, in other words to facilitate withdrawal from amalgamations
Section 253ZJ(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provides that:
“An application may be made to the Court for a ballot to be held, to decide whether a constituent part of an amalgamated organisation should withdraw from the organisation, if:
(a)the constituent part became part of the organisation as a result of an amalgamation under Division 7 after 1 February 1991; and
(b)the amalgamation occurred no less than 2 years prior to the date of the application; and
(c) the application is made:
(i)if the amalgamation occurred before the commencement of this Division - no more than 3 years after that commencement; or
(ii)if the amalgamation occurred after the commencement of this Division - no more than 5 years after the amalgamation occurred.”
Section 253ZI of the Act defines “constituent part” in relation to an amalgamated organisation to mean:
“(a) a separately identifiable constituent part; or
(b)a part of the membership of the amalgamated organisation that would have been eligible for membership of:
(i)an organisation de-registered under Division 7 in connection with the formation of the amalgamated organisation; or
(ii)a State or Territory branch of such a de-registered organisation;
if the de-registration had not occurred.”
The definition of “constituent part” to include “a separately identifiable constituent part” as specified in paragraph (a) immediately above was inserted into the Act by the Workplace Relations and other Legislation Amendment Act 1997 (“the 1997 Amendment Act”) with effect from 11 December 1997. The 1997 Amendment Act also inserted into s 253ZI(1) of the Act a definition of “separately identifiable constituent part”. That definition is as follows:
“separately identifiable constituent part, in relation to an amalgamated organisation means:
(a)if an organisation de-registered under Division 7 in connection with the formation of the amalgamated organisation remains separately identifiable under the rules of the amalgamated organisation as a branch, division or part of that organisation - that branch, division or part; or
(b)if a State or Territory branch of such a de-registered organisation under its rules as in force immediately before its de-registration remains separately identifiable under the rules of the amalgamated organisation as a branch, division or part of that organisation - that branch, division or part.”
Section 253ZJ(3) of the Act identifies those persons who may make an application for a ballot for withdrawal from amalgamation. Paragraph (c) of s 253ZJ(3) of the Act permits the committee of management of a separately identifiable constituent part of the amalgamated organisation to make such application.
Significantly, s 253ZJ(4) of the Act provides that:
“The application must be in the prescribed form and must contain such information as is prescribed.”
Regulation 98J of the Workplace Relations Regulations prescribes the form of and information required in a s 253ZJ application. Regulation 98J is in the following terms:
“An application for a ballot under section 253ZJ of the Act must be in accordance with Form 11A and must:
(a) contain the particulars stipulated in that form; and
(b)specify a person to be the representative constituent member in relation to the ballot to receive documents on behalf of the applicant and for any other purpose specified in this Division.”
Form 11A provides as follows:
“Workplace Relations Act 1996
APPLICATION FOR BALLOT UNDER DIVISION 7A OF PART IX
TO: THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA
I/We, (full name(s) of applicant(s)/We, the applicants listed in the schedule to this application*, being the prescribed number of constituent members/the committee of management of the constituent members*:
(a)apply for a ballot to be held to decide whether (name of constituent part of amalgamated organisation) should withdraw from (name of amalgamated organisation); and
(b)specify (name), of (address) as the representative constituent member for the purposes of the ballot.
* omit if inapplicable
PARTICULARS
1.Name of the amalgamated organisation appearing on the certificate of registration of the amalgamated organisation:
2.If the constituent part of the amalgamated organisation is a part of the membership of the amalgamated organisation that would have been eligible for membership of an organisation that was formerly registered under the Act - the name appearing on the certificate of registration for that organisation immediately before amalgamation day:
3.If the constituent part of the amalgamated organisation is a part of the membership of the amalgamated organisation that would have been eligible for membership of a State or Territory branch of an organisation that was formerly registered under the Act:
(a) a statement of that fact:
(b)the name appearing on the certificate of registration of the organisation immediately before amalgamation day:
3A.If the constituent part of the amalgamated organisation is a separately identifiable constituent part of the amalgamated organisation:
(a) a statement of that fact:
(b)the name of the branch, division or part of the amalgamated organisation that is the separately identifiable constituent part:
(c)the name of the organisation, de-registered under Division 7 of Part IX of the Act in connection with the formation of the amalgamated organisation, that remains, or the State or Territory branch of which remains, separately identifiable under the rules of the amalgamated organisation as a branch, division or part:
4.Particulars of the eligibility rules of the amalgamated organisation immediately before amalgamation day:
5. Particulars of the rules, immediately before amalgamation day, of:
(a)the organisation, de-registered under Division 7 of Part IX of the Act in connection with the formation of the amalgamated organisation, or the State or Territory branch of the organisation, in relation to which the persons constituting the constituent part would have been eligible for membership if the de-registration had not occurred; or
(b)the organisation, de-registered under Division 7 of Part IX of the Act in connection with the formation of the amalgamated organisation, or the State or Territory branch of the organisation, that remains separately identifiable under the rules of the amalgamated organisation as a branch, division or part:
6.Name proposed for the amalgamated organisation after withdrawal day:
7. Name proposed for the constituent part after withdrawal day:
8.If it is proposed that the eligibility rules of the amalgamated organisation be changed after withdrawal day - particulars of those changes:
9.If it is proposed that the rules of the constituent part will differ, after withdrawal day, from the rules described in clause 5 above - particulars of those changes:
10.Particulars of the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated organisation:
11.Particulars of the assets and liabilities of the constituent part before it, or the organisation of which it was a State or Territory branch, was de-registered under Division 7 of Part IX of the Act in connection with the formation of the amalgamated organisation:
12.Particulars of any proposal by the applicant for the apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated organisation and the constituent part to assist the court to comply with the requirements of section 253ZP of the Act:
13. Question proposed to be put to the ballot.
Dated 19 .
........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ..
Signature of applicant/s*
SCHEDULE
Applicants*:
* omit if inapplicable”
Section 253ZJA(1) of the Act requires that the application be accompanied by a written outline of the proposal for the constituent part to withdraw from the amalgamated organisation. That written outline must, inter alia, address in a fair and accurate manner any prescribed matters. See s 253ZJA(1)(b) & s 253 ZJA(3). Regulation 98JA prescribes the matters to be addressed by the outline. Regulation 98JA is in the following terms: :
“For the purposes of paragraph 253ZJA(1)(b) of the Act, the outline must address the particulars mentioned in items 1, 2, 3, 3A, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Form 11A.”
THE BAKING SECTION
On 27 September 1993 pursuant to Division 7 of Part IX of the Act, an amalgamation was effected between the Union and the Pastrycooks, Bakers, Biscuitmakers and Allied Trades Union (“PBBATU”). The Union was the host organisation in the amalgamation. Upon amalgamation the PBBATU was de-registered and the PBBATU members became members of the Baking Section. Although the PBBATU was a federally registered organisation, it only had one branch which functioned effectively, that is, the Victorian branch.
Upon amalgamation, the rules of the Division were altered to make provision for rules to apply to the Baking Section, in addition to other rules applying generally within the Division. Pursuant to r 24 of section 2 of the rules of the Union applicable to the Division, Divisional Branches may be established in each State and Territory. Rule 51 of these rules also permits a Divisional Branch to establish “sub-branches and/or Sections”.
Rule 1 of the rules applying to the Baking Section provides inter alia that:
“The Victorian Baking Section shall be a section of the Victorian Divisional Branch as provided by Section 2 Rule 51”.
Rule 4 of the rules applicable to the Baking Section is headed “COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT” and provides as follows:
“(a)The baking section shall have a Committee of Management consisting of the three officers and nine ordinary members. The Committee of Management shall, subject to these rules, exercise all necessary powers and perform such functions as may be required by law for the efficient control and management of the section.
(b)The Committee of Management shall meet at least once each month and at such other times as the officers of the section or the Committee of Management may from time to time determine.
(c)Unless the circumstances otherwise require, the Baking Section Secretary/Treasurer shall give each member of the Committee of management at least seven days written or oral notice of the time, date and place of any meeting thereof.
(d)A quorum at a meeting of the Committee of Management shall be seven.”
Rule 11(g) of these rules has the effect that the term of office of each office holder in the Section concludes on 3 August 1998.
THE PROCEEDING
Mr Gray filed three documents in IRCA on 19 March 1997. These documents were:
An application for a ballot under Division 7A of Part IX of the Act;
A formal affidavit accompanying the application; and
A notice of motion returnable on 24 March 1997 in which the following order was sought:
“That pursuant to section 253ZL of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 a vote of the members of the Baking Section of the Miscellaneous Works (sic) Division, Victoria Branch of the Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union be taken by secret ballot to decide whether the Baking Section should withdraw from the Miscellaneous Workers Division of the Australian Liquor Hospitality Miscellaneous Workers Union.”
On 24 March 1997 North J made orders for the filing and serving of affidavits by the parties and for the advertising of the application in daily newspapers circulating in the State of Victoria.
In his affidavit filed with the application Mr Gray described himself as a “representative Applicant”. The application itself contained the following:
“We, the applicants listed in the schedule to this application being the committee of management of the constituent members:
(a) apply for a ballot ........ ....; and
(b)Rodney John Gray, ... is the resperesentative (sic) constituent member for the purpose of the ballot.”
The application is dated 18 March 1997 and bears the signature of Mr Gray thereafter a schedule is set out as follows:
“SCHEDULE
Steven Pohle (President) Maurie King
Rodney John Gray (Secretary/Treasurer) Angelo Mammone
Pauline Kelly Elsa Piazza
Isa Unal Julie Scholes
Leo Mancino Oscar Lopez
Bruce Rogers”
The proceeding was originally listed for hearing on 19 August 1997. By this time IRCA ceased to have any jurisdiction with respect to the application and this Court became seized of the matter by virtue of schedule 16 to the 1996 Amendment Act. On 31 July 1997, by consent, the matter was adjourned to a directions hearing on 10 October 1997. Subsequent adjournment orders were made by consent until on 19 December 1997 North J made further directions. These directions included the filing of any amended application, the applicant’s outline as required by s253ZJA of the Act and contentions of fact and law by both parties.
An amended application for ballot under Division 7A of Part IX of the Act was filed on 21 January 1998, together with a document entitled, “Outline of Proposed Withdrawal of the Baking Section from the LHMU”.
The application was heard by the Court on 25 and 26 May 1998. Mr Robert Hinkley, of counsel, appeared for the Union and Mr Herman Borenstein, of counsel, appeared for Mr Gray. On 26 May 1998 Mr Borenstein informed the Court that Mr Gray would apply to further amend the application and to amend the outline. Those applications to amend were heard by the Court on 28 May 1998.
Although North J gave the applicant leave to file an amended application on 19 December 1997, Mr Hinkley contended that such leave was given subject to the Union’s submission that the application was not capable of valid amendment. Mr Borenstein did not contend to the contrary and his further application for amendment was made in the context where the ability of Mr Gray to amend the application was disputed.
The form in which the application is drafted invites immediate correction. The application is not made by Mr Gray alone. It is an application made by the committee of management of the section pursuant to s 253ZJ(3)(c) of the Act. All members of the committee of management at the time the application was filed should have been listed as co-applicants, notwithstanding that Mr Gray was “the representative constituent member” in under Regulation 98J.
AUTHORISATION
On 4 March 1997 the Committee of Management of the Baking Section (“the Committee”) resolved to make the application and further for Mr Gray to be the representative constituent member for the purposes of the ballot. On 3 March 1998 the Committee purported to resolve to adopt and ratify the application filed in IRCA on 19 March 1997. It also purported to carry the following motion:
“Having noted the amendments made in December 1997 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 relating to applications for withdrawal from amalgamation, and having this day viewed and read the amended application dated 21 January 1998 filed in VI 1294 of 1997, the Committee hereby adopts, ratifies and approves the amended application.”
The 3 March 1998 meeting was not quorate at the time those resolutions were purportedly made. On 6 April 1998 a quorate meeting of the Committee resolved as follows:
“That the Committee of Management, having this day viewed and read the original Application in action number VI 1294 of 1997, filed the 19th day of March, 1997 in the Federal Court (sic), now ratify and adopt the Application filed the 19th day of March, 1997 filed in action number VI 1294 of 1997.”
The Committee further resolved on 6 April 1998 as follows:
“That the Members of the Committee of Management, having this day viewed and read the amended Application dated 21 day of January 1998, ratify and adopt the said Amended Application filed in action number VI 1294 of 1997.”
On 15 May 1998 election results for the positions of President, Vice-President and Members of the Committee were declared. Subsequent to this declaration, on 21 May 1998, the Committee adopted and ratified the abovementioned resolutions of 4 March 1997 and 6 April 1998, and further, it adopted ratified and approved the application filed on 19 March 1997 and the amended application filed on 21 January 1998. It also carried a further motion in the following terms:
“The Committee of Management hereby appoints Steven Polhe to be the agent of the Committee of Management for the purposes of instructing the Baking Section’s Legal Advisors in respect to any matter or issue or thing arising from or in connection with the Application for withdrawal from amalgamation, being the Application filed in the Federal Court in VI 1294 of 1997, including any amendments thereof.”
Although Mr Gray is referred to as “the applicant” in the application it is obvious from the text of the application and from s 253ZJ(3)(c) of the Act that the members of the Committee made the application. I reject Mr Hinkley’s submission that Mr Gray made the application. The text of the application for ballot suggests the contrary. Its opening words are:
“We, the applicants listed in the schedule to this application being the Committee of Management of the constituent members:
(a) apply ...”
I also reject Mr Hinkley’s submission that the Committee did not make the original application because the matters contained in it were not the subject of a decision of the Committee. In order to resolve to make an application for a ballot it is not necessary for the Committee to resolve upon the precise form of that application. In any event, if I am in error as to that matter, for the reasons which I set out below under the heading “ratification”, it is my view that the actions of the Committee in March 1997 were ratified in April and May 1998.
Mr Hinkley contended that only those members of the Committee who voted for a resolution in favour of making an application for ballot could be applicants in the proceeding. He identified three people who were members of the Committee in March 1997 but who did not attend the meeting on 4 March 1997. Mr Hinkley, in effect, submitted that the decisions taken by the Committee to attempt to effect a “withdrawal from amalgamation” were not decisions of “a body able to exercise the corporate authority of the organisation”. The effect of his submission was that the decisions were really no more than decisions of a collection of individuals, and as the individuals varied from time to time at various committee meetings at which resolutions were made regarding withdrawal from amalgamation, only those attending at the 4 March 1997 meeting were able to amend the application filed on 19 March 1997. I reject that submission. A reference to “the committee of management of that part” in s 253ZJ(3)(c) of the Act, is a reference to the committee of management at the time of the “separately identifiable constituent part” as constituted from time to time. In my view changes in the constitution of a committee of management do not affect the identity of such a body for the purposes of applying to amend any application made by a differently constituted predecessor committee.
A logical conclusion of the above reasoning process is that a committee which is split 4:3 on the question of making an application for a ballot will have all members listed as co-applicants in the application. This is a consequence of the form of the legislation and the principle of majoritarian democracy. As to the later concept see R v Sweeney; ex parte Northwest Exports Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 259, 267 per Stephen J. Although named as co-applicants there would be nothing to prevent such persons submitting to the Court that the application be dismissed. It is apparent that applications under Division 7A of Part IX of the Act are unusual in the sense that they differ from the normal lis inter partes and have features in common with election inquiries under Division 5 of Part IX of the Act. For example, s 253ZV of the Act empowers the Court to make orders to “resolve any difficulty” arising in relation to the application of Division 7A, and further s 253ZL(3) empowers the Court to make orders “as it thinks fit in relation to the conduct of the [withdrawal from amalgamation] ballot”. See also s 253ZJA(4) of the Act regarding the Court making orders to amend the written outline of a proposal for withdrawal from an amalgamated organisation.
I accept Mr Hinkley’s submission that the acts of a committee of management under Division 7A of Part IX are not the corporate acts of an organisation. However, such acts are nonetheless capable of enlivening the Court’s jurisdiction under the Division. It is unlikely or would be unusual at least, that any organisation registered under the Act would support an application under Division 7A of Part IX.
In my view, the approach which Mr Hinkley urged upon the Court, as to the meaning of “committee of management” in Division 7A of Part IX of the Act, is unnecessarily complex and technical. I agree with Northrop and Ryan JJ in the Re Food Preservers’ Union of Australia (1988) 79 ALR 138, 144 that “[i]ndustrial law should be kept as simple as possible.”
RATIFICATION
It follows that in my opinion the Committee meetings on 6 April and 21 May 1998 were competent to amend the application made in March 1997. The question remains whether these meetings were competent to ratify the amended application and outline filed in January 1998. In my view they were so competent and resolutions made on 6 April and 21 May 1998 were effective for the Committee to adopt and ratify the amended application and outline. Mr Hinkley’s objection to the concept that such ratification was possible was based on a view that the Committee cannot be considered in a collective sense but only as individuals constituting such a body. I have already rejected that submission. Consequently, I see no reason why the Committee cannot ratify actions taken by previous committee resolutions. Ratification in these instant circumstances can operate “retroactively” so that the original act being ratified was “valid and effective when it (was) done”. See ReConstruction Forestry Mining and Energy Union: ex parte W J Deane and Sons Pty Ltd (1994) 181 CLR 539, 545 per Mason CJ, Dawson and McHugh JJ.
THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION MADE IN COURT ON 26 MAY 1998
During the course of his reply on 26 May 1998, Mr Borenstein informed the Court that he wished to hand up a further amended application, primarily dealing with suggested amendments to the rules of the proposed organisation that would be registered upon withdrawal from amalgamation. Mr Hinkley requested an adjournment to consider the application for amendment. The matter was adjourned until 28 May 1998 to enable counsel to consider their positions further on the issue of amendment. On 28 May 1998 Mr Borenstein filed in Court a document which was intended to replace Schedule E to the application. Schedule E is the proposed new set of rules of the proposed new organisation - “The Pastrycooks, Bakers, Biscuitmakers and Allied Trades Union, Victorian Branch” (“PBBATUVB”). It was also indicated by Mr Borenstein that consequential amendments would be required to be made to the outline of proposed withdrawal. There was no evidence before the Court that the Committee has approved of any further changes to the application or the outline. The application is founded in the Committee. Only the Committee can amend the application.
The 21 May 1998 resolution purporting to invest power in Mr Polhe to approve amendments without reference to the Committee is in my view an impermissible delegation to Mr Polhe of what is the function of the Committee under Division 7A of Part IX of the Act. There being no evidence of any resolution of the Committee approving any amendment to the application or outline other than what was filed on 21 January 1998, I dismiss the application made in Court on 26 May 1998 to amend the substantive application before the Court and the accompanying outline. Even if the Committee was validly able to appoint Mr Polhe to singularly decide upon amendments to its application, there is no evidence of any decision by Mr Polhe to decide upon any amendments.
Two questions now remain for the Court to consider:
Does the application (as amended on 21 January 1998) comply with the provisions of the Act?
Does the outline accompanying the amended application comply with the provisions of the Act?
COMPLIANCE WITH s 253ZJ(4) OF THE ACT
For the application for ballot to be effective it is mandatory for it to comply with Form 11A and Regulation 98J. In my view the 21 January 1998 amended application fails to so comply in at least the two following respects:
There was no provision of the details of differences in the rules to apply to the PBBATUVB as compared to the PBBATU. The material filed on 21 January 1998 which purported to comply with requirement No 9 in Form 11A related only to the conditions of eligibility for membership rule and a transitional rule relating to the holding of offices in the PBBATUVB after withdrawal from amalgamation. It was conceded by Mr Borenstein that such differences would not be the only differences.
There was no provision of the particulars of the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated organisation, that is, the Union. The material filed as at 21 January 1998 which purported to comply with requirement No 10 in Form 11A related only to the Victorian Branch of the Miscellaneous Workers Division of the Union. Even if I had allowed the amendment to the application sought by Mr Borenstein on 28 May 1998 this requirement would still not have been satisfied, as the changes proposed in the amendment, did not remedy this deficiency.
It is unnecessary to consider what further, if in any other respects, the application fails to meet the mandatory requirements of s 253ZJ(4) of the Act.
COMPLIANCE WITH s 253ZJA OF THE ACT
It is unnecessary for the Court to consider this question, the Court having found that the application must be dismissed for failure to comply in two respects with Form 11A.
ORDER
The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding fourteen (14) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall
Associate:
Dated: 4 June 1998
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Herman Borenstein Solicitor for the Applicant: Howie & Maher Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Robert Hinkley Solicitor for the Respondent: Ryan Carlisle Thomas Date of Hearing: 25, 26 and 28 May 1998 Date of Judgment: 4 June 1998
0
3
0