Mapstone, David John Garland v William Thorton - [1982] FCA 254

Re: DAVID JOHN GARLAND MAPSTONE; BERNADETTE ANNE CALLAGHAN; GABRIELLE MARY
CRAWFORD and CHRISTOPHER WOODS
And: WILLIAM THORNTON; JOAN RIORDAN; MAXWELL RONALD MULLER; JOHN PETER MAYNES;
LEONARD LUKE DOBBY and BRIAN FRANCIS TOOLEY
Q8 of 1982
Industrial law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Fitzgerald, J.

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Order to obey rules of Union - Newly elected Federal Councillors entitled to participate in Federal Council meeting - failure of outgoing office-bearers to certify such entitlement - such failure merely a matter of machinery only and not a condition precedent to entitlement - order that chairman admit applicants to meeting and that outgoing office-bearers withdraw and desist from attendance at meeting.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, s.141

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 22:11:1982

ORDER

UPON THE UNDERTAKING of the Applicants herein by their counsel to file affidavits by each applicant deposing that each is a member of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia;

AND UPON THE UNDERTAKING of the Applicants herein by their counsel to file an affidavit or affidavits deposing that each of the Respondents, Leonard Luke DOBBY and Brian Francis TOOLEY was served on Saturday 20 November 1982 with a copy of the order nisi pronounced in these proceedings on 19 November 1982;

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, until further order,

(a) the respondent John Peter MAYNES admit the applicants and each of them to the meeting of the Federal Council of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia presently being conducted at Coffs Harbour in the State of New South Wales; and

(b) the respondents Leonard Luke DOBBEY, Brian Francis TOOLEY, Joan RIORDAN, and Maxwell Ronald MULLER withdraw and desist from attendance as Federal Councillors representing the Central and Southern Queensland Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia at the said meeting of the Federal Council.

2. Each party have liberty to apply to have the matter restored for further hearing upon the giving of notice to the other party.

3. This application be adjourned for further directions to 9:30 am. on Monday 6 December 1982 in the State Law Courts Building, George Street, Brisbane.

JUDGE1

This is an application under s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 ("the Act"). Basically, all that is involved is a question of construction of Union rules. There is an element of artificiality in attempting to ascertain what was intended, since it is extremely unlikely that those responsible for the rules which fall to be interpreted ever turned their minds to the present problem at all.

The Federated Clerks Union of Australia ("the Union") is a registered organisation of employees under the Act. The applicants are members of the Union. Each of the applicants has recently been elected a member of the Union's Federal Council to represent the Central and Southern Queensland Branch of the Union ("the Branch"). The Federal Council, which, under the Union's Federal Rules, has the supreme control of the union except…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mapstone, David John Garland v William Thorton and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1982] FCA 254
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 1982

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mapstone, David John Garland v William Thorton involved a dispute within the Federated Clerks Union of Australia. The applicants, David John Garland and David John Mapstone, sought an order for the chairman of the Federal Council to admit them to a meeting, which was being held at Coffs Harbour. They also sought an order that certain respondents, including Leonard Luke Dobby and Brian Francis Tooley, withdraw and desist from attending the meeting as Federal Councillors. The dispute arose from the applicants' election as Federal Councillors and the refusal of the respondents to certify their entitlement to participate in the meeting.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the failure of the outgoing office-bearers to certify the applicants' entitlement to participate in the Federal Council meeting constituted a condition precedent to the applicants' participation, or if it was merely a procedural matter. The applicants argued that the outgoing office-bearers' certification was not a condition precedent but rather an administrative requirement. They contended that their election was valid and that the outgoing office-bearers' failure to certify did not affect the applicants' entitlement to attend the meeting.

The court held that the outgoing office-bearers' failure to certify the applicants' entitlement to participate in the meeting was merely a matter of machinery and not a condition precedent. The court emphasised that the applicants' election was valid and that their entitlement to participate in the meeting was not dependent on the certification by the outgoing office-bearers. Consequently, the court ordered that the chairman of the Federal Council admit the applicants to the meeting and that the respondents withdraw and desist from attending the meeting as Federal Councillors.

Additionally, the court granted liberty to the parties to apply for the matter to be restored for further hearing upon notice to the other party. The application was adjourned for further directions to be held on 6 December 1982.

Orders

Orders of the court

UPON THE UNDERTAKING of the Applicants herein by their counsel to file affidavits by each applicant deposing that each is a member of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia;

AND UPON THE UNDERTAKING of the Applicants herein by their counsel to file an affidavit or affidavits deposing that each of the Respondents, Leonard Luke DOBBY and Brian Francis TOOLEY was served on Saturday 20 November 1982 with a copy of the order nisi pronounced in these proceedings on 19 November 1982;

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, until further order,

(a) the respondent John Peter MAYNES admit the applicants and each of them to the meeting of the Federal Council of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia presently being conducted at Coffs Harbour in the State of New South Wales; and

(b) the respondents Leonard Luke DOBBEY, Brian Francis TOOLEY, Joan RIORDAN, and Maxwell Ronald MULLER withdraw and desist from attendance as Federal Councillors representing the Central and Southern Queensland Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia at the said meeting of the Federal Council.

2. Each party have liberty to apply to have the matter restored for further hearing upon the giving of notice to the other party.

3. This application be adjourned for further directions to 9:30 am. on Monday 6 December 1982 in the State Law Courts Building, George Street, Brisbane.

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.