Hill, Richard William v Ophel, Kenneth

[1977] FCA 89

c r	,.
COMM~NIC~PLLTH OF AUSTRALIA

I N THE F'EDEW COURT

V No. 19 of 1977

OF AUSTRaIA

INDUSTRIAL	DIVISION	In the matter oI" -
THE CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION
ACT 1904

Between -

RICHARD wrLLrm HIU

Claimant

And -

KENNETH OPHEL !

6 Respondent

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Smithe rs , Frardki and Northrop , JJ. I

DATE OF	ORDER:	13th October 1977	! '
Melbourne

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Rule Nisi herein be discharged.

!

i

' i

SMITHERS, J: I n t h i s ca se we are s a t i s f i e d t h a t the c l a i n a n t

has f a i l e d t3 e s t a b l i s h t h a t e l t h e r of t h e respondents

i s f a i l i n g t o perfor! o r obs2rve any ru le of the

associat ion which he i s under any express o r i r rp l ied

obligation to perform o r observe.

bJe have examined all t h e r u l e s r e f e r r e d to

by Mr. Cooney ~ 1 c h a -Jiew t o a s c e r t a i n i n g w h e t h e r , i n

the c i r cuEs tances d l sc l a sed to the cour t , there could !

be found any expres s o r i lrplied obllgatt lon which the

respondents o r e i t h e r o f t b w cou ld poss ib ly be s a i d - ,

t o be f a l l l n s t3 obseroe o r perform.

It was o u r view t h a t i t was a r g u a b l e t h a t

i n t he circut!!szances i n : ~ h i c h claiEs o f t h e c l a i F a n t

were o u t s t a l d l n g a : a l n s t t h e a s s o c i a t i o n a n d r e q u i r e d t h e

a t t e n t i o n o f	t:lo	a s s o c i d t i o n e i t h s r	a t i t s f e d e r a l l e v e l	I .
' ,

o1̂ managen;ent o r i t s b r a n c h l e v e l of managment, a d u t y

cou ld be i t rp l i ed tha t the e x e c u t l m o f f i c e r s s u c h a s t h e

p r e s l d e n t a n d the s e c r a t s r y , s h u l d take a l l reasonable l

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

c o n n i t t e e o f n a n a g m e n s f o r decision. I t bacaEe c l e a r

however on t h e e v l l e n c e of the r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t t h i s

du ty , i f a c t u a l l y c r e a t e d by the ru l e s , had been fu l ly

perforped and observed.

The c la i r r s were Srought before the branch I

management cmr? i t tee and were r2fer red by tha t cor rn i t tee

to the federal corrmttee of tranagztrent which r a jected

them. accordingly, e v m 3 n Y-ie view o f t h e r u l e s nest

f a w u r a b l e t o t h e c l a i p a n t , t h r e 1 s no ou t s t and ing un-

pe r famed ob l iga t lon th2 reunde r i n e i t h e r o f the

respondents and there was no such obl iga t lon a t the

comencenent of these proceedlngs.

We assume, w i t n m t dec id ing , tha t the ev idence

be fo re u s establishes S p r i m a f a c l e o u t s t a n d i n g l i a b i l i t y

o f the assoc ie t ion , th rough the j ranch , i n f a v o w o f

Mr. Hill l n r e s p e c t o f cer ta in accounts .

I t 172s argued by Mr. Comey tha t once such

a liability was s h o w t h z r e a m s e under t he rules an

obli2,atlrJn I n t'hs s e c r e t a r y a n d p r z s i d e n t t o sign a

cheque againzt the assoc ie t lon branch funds and to forward

t h e sax2 to Mr. H i l l For the evount of t he l i a b i l i t y .

But on t h e p r o ; ) s r i n t e r p r c t a t i m 3f the r u l e s i t i s o u r

view t h e t t h e o b l i g a t x n t o ds t'nese th lngs does no t

a r i s e o u t o f t'ne m r e s x l s t e n c e of 2 l i a b l l i t y b u t o n l y

when t h s r e 1 s a l i a b i l i t y t b discharge of whlch i s

a u t h o r i s e d b y t h e relevant governln; body.

There 1 s n o t h m g i n the w i d e n c e b s f o r e us t o

show t h a t t h e d l s c h a r g a o f t h e e l l e g e d l i a b i l i t y t3

Mr. H111 was e v c r a u t h o r i s 2 2 by t h a r e l e v a n t g v c r n i n g

body. Ther? 1 s evldence hsw?v?r t h s t when t h s c l a k a n t

PBE/EJ

Ophel

submitted h i s c l a i m s t o t h e b r a n c h , t h e s e c r e t a r y d u l y i

r e f e r r e d t h e same to the govern ing body, as i t was his

d u t y t3 do, and that governsng body, being the governing

body of the branch, d ld n o t a u t h o r l s e payment b u t

r e f e r r e d t h e q u e s t i o n t o t h e f e d e r a l c o r n n i t t e e o f

management.

The federal commit tee of management dec ided tha t

t h e amounts In ques t ion shou ld no t be pa id and t h e

l i a b i l i t i e s i f they ex i s t ed	- which was	not accepted	-
should not be d ischarged .

I n this connect ion i t i s pe r t inen t t o obse rve :

(a> that r u l e 14 of p a r t 2 of t h e a s s o c i a t i o n ' s r u l e s

cannot be read as imposing a duty on r;he p r e s i d e n t

and s e c r e t a r y a c t u a l l y t o p a y o u t money t o d l s c h a r g e

l i a b i l i t i e s t h e d i s c h a r g e o f w h i c h	has	no t been
au thor l sed by the aporopr ia te body	and,

!-

(b ) that r u l e 22 of p a r t 1, p a r t i c u l a r l y p a r t s ( b ) and ( e )

of that r u l e and rules 1 and 5 ( c ) of p a r t 2 , make

!

c l e a r that i n a c a s e l i k e this i t i s the comni t tee

of management of the branch which i s the awprnpr ia te

govern ing body to au thor i se d lscharge of l i a b i l i t i e s

and i s the body hav ing , subJec t t o con t ro l by branch

. meet ings , t he con t ro l of the funds under the

- management of the branch.

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r u l e n i s l will be d ischarged .

---_ __ - -. .- . . -_-_. .-~ c _. ..- . - ---__ ,_ _ _ .- - ._