Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCAFC 107
Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCA 506
NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC)
The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002. Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.
The transitional arrangements are as follows:
- All Full Court judgments delivered prior to 1 January 2002 will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.
- All Full Court judgments delivered between 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 have been assigned parallel medium neutral citations in both the FCA and FCAFC series.
- All Full Court judgments delivered from 1 May 2002 will contain the FCAFC medium neutral citation only.
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCA 506
INDUSTRIAL LAW – proposal to amend divisional rules of union – where Divisional Executive decided against amendment – request to review decision - whether governing body of union obliged to review decision of Divisional Executive when request made – whether implied restraint on operation of decision pending consideration of request to review decision
INDUSTRIAL LAW – request for referendum – methods of requesting – divisional branches passed resolutions requesting referendum – whether valid request by majority of members of division - petition of union members requesting referendum – whether petition signed by requisite percentage of divisional members – whether all signatures on petition genuine – whether necessary to verify genuineness of all signatures on petition for it to be valid – whether presumption of regularity could be applied to verify that signatures genuine – whether presumption in favour of honesty and against fraud could be applied to verify that signatures genuine – whether members required to prove petition - whether Divisional Executive to investigate genuineness of signatures on petition - whether Divisional Executive to check financial status of signatories
INDUSTRIAL LAW – proof of membership of union – whether payment of union dues evidence of intention to become a union member – whether payment of union dues sufficient to attain membership of union – whether payment of union dues must be personally made - whether necessary for person to sign membership application form to become a union member
INDUSTRIAL LAW – interpretation of terms in union rules – meaning to be given to terms “members”, “financial members” and “membership” when used in same rule – purpose of rule – whether application of defined meanings creates inconsistency
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 187A, 195(1)(b) and 209.
Kingham v Ferguson [2001] FCA 537, (2001) 107 IR 403 referred to
Morris v Kanssen [1946] AC 459 referred to
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Limited v Imperial Smelting Corporation Limited [1942] AC 154 referred to
McLean Bros and Rigg Ltd v Grice (1906) 4 CLR 835 referred to
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 referred to
Forward v Merchant Service Guild of Australia (1987) 16 FCR 302 followedRe Porter; Re Transport Workers Union of Australia (1989) 32 IR 87 followed
Continue reading Kingham v Sutton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCA 506
- Case
- [2002] FCA 506
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed changes to the Divisional Rules were valid and could be certified. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the appellants had to prove the validity of the signatures on the proposed rule changes. Another issue was whether the proposed changes to the timing of the elections were in accordance with the existing rules and if the Divisional Secretary had the authority to conduct a postal ballot for such changes.
The court examined the relevant rules and the circumstances of the postal ballot conducted by Mr Sutton, the Divisional Secretary. It was determined that the proposed rule changes did not require any amendments to National Rule 17. The court found that the Divisional Secretary had the authority to conduct the postal ballot under rule 26 of the Divisional Rules. However, the court held that the appellants did not need to prove the validity of the signatures on the proposed rule changes. Instead, the focus should have been on whether the proposed changes were consistent with the existing rules.
The appeal was dismissed, but the court ordered that a referendum on the proposed rule changes should be held by the Divisional Executive.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.