Lynch v Howard - [1980] FCA 118

Re: ALICE ROSE LYNCH
And: W.J. HOWARD, A. BARTON, J. MARSHALL, J. OSBORNE, K. MARCH, M. McGREGOR,
E. JOHNSON, D. WATKINS, F. LAURIE, D. WITTINGSLOW, W. NOCK, W. SPICER,
L.J. OSBORNE, A. FOSTER, F. FOSTER, R. SMALL, E. TREVORS, B. RENET, A. BOWDEN
L.J. SHOPT, AND THE SHOWMEN'S GUILD OF AUSTRALASIA (1980) 44 FLR 71
N.S.W. No. 1 of 1980
Industrial Law - Conciliation and Arbitration - Appeal

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Smithers(1), Evatt(2) and Keely(2) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - election to membership - "a majority of the votes of all members present and voting" - meaning of - recourse to history of rule where ambiguity - Conciliation and Arbitration Act s.141

Evidence - application for leave to adduce further evidence on hearing of appeal - Federal Court of Australia Act s.27

Appeal - application that proceeding be remitted to trial judge for further hearing - discretion of appeal court - whether parties bound by the course of the trial - Federal Court of Australia Act s.28(1)(c)

Conciliation and Arbitration - Registered organization - Performance and observance of rules - Proposed member of organization - Requirement that proposed member receive majority of votes of members present and voting at meeting - Informal votes - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), ss. 140, 141.

Appeal - Application for leave to adduce further evidence at appeal - Application to remit matter to trial judge - Discretion of appellate court - Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss. 27, 28 (1) (c).

HEADNOTE

Rule 4(c) of the rules of a registered organization provided in part: "A person proposed for membership must receive a majority of the votes of all members present and voting at the meeting before being accepted as a member. This voting shall be by secret ballot."

The appellant, a member of the organization, brought proceedings under ss. 140 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 after her husband (the applicant) had unsuccessfully applied for membership of the organization. The trial judge found that at the relevant meeting the applicant had received fourteen "Yes" votes, four "No" votes and that sixty-eight members present had not recorded a vote and dismissed the appellant's action.

On appeal.

Held: Per curiam - (1) Rule 4 (c) required each applicant to receive a majority of the votes of all members present and voting at the election in respect of the candidature of the applicant.

Per Smithers J. - Rule 4 (c) referred to formal votes.
(2) The respondents should not be permitted to call further evidence from the returning officer as to the voting figures at the relevant meeting because the evidence would contradict that led by the respondents at the trial and would not necessarily cause the court to rule in favour of the respondents.

Sanders v. Sanders (1881), 19 Ch D 373, referred to.
(3) It was not appropriate to remit the matter to the trial judge under s.…

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 Lynch v Howard

Details

AGLC: Lynch, A.R. v. Howard, W.J. & Ors [1980] FCA 118 ((1980) 44 FLR 71)
Case: [1980] FCA 118
Decision Date: 27 AUGUST 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lynch v Howard was a case heard in the Australian court where the primary dispute was about the eligibility of James Thomas Lynch for membership in the Showmen's Guild of Australasia. The matter was brought before the court after Lynch's election to the Guild was challenged on the basis that it did not meet the legal requirement of "a majority of the votes of all members present and voting." The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to interpret the precise meaning of this phrase in the context of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were centered on the interpretation of the phrase "a majority of the votes of all members present and voting." Specifically, the court had to determine whether this phrase required a strict majority of all votes cast by members present at the meeting or if it could be interpreted more broadly. The court was also required to consider the historical context and usage of this phrase within the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to ascertain its intended meaning.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the historical application and interpretation of the phrase in question. The court examined past cases and legislative history to understand how the phrase had been applied in similar contexts. Ultimately, the court found that the phrase should be interpreted in a way that aligns with a broader and more flexible understanding, rather than a strict interpretation requiring a majority of all possible votes. This interpretation was deemed to be consistent with the legislative intent and the practicalities of conducting guild elections. As a result, the court held that Lynch's election was valid under the broader interpretation of the phrase.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, set aside the previous order made on 13 December 1979, and direct each respondent, excluding the Showmen's Guild of Australasia, to recognise Lynch as a member of the Guild. This decision effectively recognised Lynch's eligibility and membership in the Guild based on the broader interpretation of the statutory requirement.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The order of the Court made on 13 December 1979 be set aside.

3. In lieu thereof each of the respondents, other than the Showmen's Guild of Australasia, is directed to perform and observe the rules of the Guild by recognising James Thomas Lynch as a member of the Guild.

Appeal allowed. Order of the court made on 13th December, 1979, set aside, in lieu thereof each of the respondents, other than the Showmen's Guild of Australasia directed to perform and observe the rules of the Guild by recognizing James Thomas Lynch as a member of the Guild.

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.