Jess v Scott - [1986] FCA 287

Re: MICHAEL PATRICK JESS
And: R.T. SCOTT; J.G. KIDD; L. CARMICHAEL; G. CAMPBELL; R.A. BRUGGY; W.
MARTIN; E. LIPSCOMBE; F. MAURICE; D.A. BEER; W.R. ARSCOTT; F. McGOWAN; R.B.
HAWKES; G. HARRISON; R.M. ADAMSON; H. MALCOLM; P. JOHNSON; J.F. HALFPENNY; J.
O'NEILL; R. POINTER; M. TUMBERS; F. BASTOW; A.J. MARKS; B.R. BURNS; J.A.
VAUGHAN; M.K. HILL; J. WOODS AMALGAMATED METALS FOUNDRY & SHIPWRIGHTS' UNION
Nos. 1 and 9 of 1984
Industrial Law
14 IR 341

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Wilcox J.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - Union elections - Publication of documents during election period - Whether publication contravened rules of union - Whether individual officers are personally liable to bear expenditure incurred.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ss.2, 141, 171C, 197A.

Evidence Act 1905 ss.7A(1), 7B.

Scott v Jess (1984) 3 FCR 263, Brophy v Mapstone (1984) 56 ALR 135, Tanner v Maynes (1985) 63 ALR 197, Allen v Townsend (1977) 31 FLR 431, Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150, Howard Smith Limited v Ampol Petroleum Limited (1974) AC 821, Thompson v Randwick Municipal Council (1950) 81 CLR 87 referred to.

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 23:7:1986

In matter No. NSW 1 of 1984

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J A McCarthy and Mr G W Watson

Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs T V Martin & Co

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr D M Ryan QC with Mr J W Shaw and Mr J McGrath

Solicitors for the Respondents: Messrs Turner Freeman

In matter No. NSW 9 of 1984

Counsel for Applicant: Mr D M J Bennett QC with Mr J A McCarthy

Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs T V Martin & Co

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr D M Ryan QC with Mr J W Shaw

Solicitors for the Respondents: Messrs Turner Freeman

ORDER

The Application be dismissed.

The applicant pay to the respondents their costs of the proceedings.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

During recent years elections for offices in the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union -- now the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union -- have been notable both for the vigour with which they have been fought and for the extent of the litigation which they have engendered. These cases require consideration, yet again, of matters related to elections held in late 1983 and early 1984 in respect of positions within the Tasmanian and Queensland branches of the union and for the federal position of National Organiser. The total election period, in connection with those positions, extended from 15 August 1983, when nominations opened for positions in the two branches, to 17 February 1984 when the last ballots closed. The union is, of course, an organization registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904.

The present judgment relates to two separate proceedings: what remains of matter NSW 1 of 1984 and the whole of matter NSW 9 of 1984. Matter NSW 1…

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 Jess v Scott

Details

AGLC: Jess, Michael Patrick v Scott, R.T. & Ors [1986] FCA 287 (14 IR 341)
Case: [1986] FCA 287
Decision Date: 23 JULY 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Jess brought a claim against Scott in relation to union election procedures. The crux of the matter was whether certain publications made by Scott during the election period contravened the union’s rules and if Scott, as an individual officer, should bear the costs incurred due to these publications. The nature of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of union rules and the personal liability of union officers for expenses arising from alleged procedural breaches.

The central legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the publications made by Scott during the union election period breached the union's rules and if Scott was personally liable for the costs incurred as a result of these actions. This involved examining the specific provisions of the union’s rules, the context in which the publications occurred, and the scope of personal liability for union officers in such circumstances.

The court considered the union’s rules and the evidence presented regarding the publications. It concluded that the publications did not contravene the union’s rules and, therefore, did not warrant any personal liability on Scott’s part. The court held that the applicant's claims were unfounded and dismissed the application. Additionally, the court ordered Jess to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings, reflecting the unsuccessful nature of the applicant's claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application be dismissed.

The applicant pay to the respondents their costs of the proceedings.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.