Legal Research
Cases
McGee, S. v Sanders, J.H.

McGee, S. v Sanders, J.H.

Case [1991] FCA 701 15 November 1991

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Re: STEVEN McGEE and REX HORE
And: J.H. SANDERS; C. KEILY; K. WISE; H.S. WEIR; G.R. NEWMAN; B.R. AGG; D.
CRUMP; K.J. CONNORS; G. WOOD; J.M. BILTRIS; J.B. WHITE; D.A. PORTER and P.
POWER
No. V I70 of 1991
FED No. 701
Industrial Law
(1991) 32 FCR 397
(1991) 39 IR 400

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Gray J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - registered organisation - rules - performance and observance - right of members of branch committee of management to inspect documents of branch - whether resolution of branch committee of management inhibiting inspection valid - whether right of inspection may be exercised in company with a stranger such as an accountant - whether entitlement to photocopies of documents - application for interim orders - orders sought would have effect of final orders - considerations in granting of interim orders.

Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss. 192, 209

McGee v Sanders (Federal Court of Australia, Heerey J., 13th August 1991, unreported)

Bevan v Webb (1901) 2 Ch 59

Norey v Keep (1909) 1 Ch 561

Dodd v Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union (1924) 1 Ch 116

Edman v Ross (1922) 22 SR (N.S.W.) 351

McCusker v McCrae (1966) SC 253

Burns v London and South Wales Coal Company (1890) 7 TLR 119

HEARING

TOWNSVILLE

#DATE 15:11:1991

Counsel for the applicants: Miss M. Hickey

Solicitors for the applicants: Holding Redlich

Counsel for the respondents other
than the respondents G.R. Newman,
D. Crump and J.B. White: Mr H. Borenstein

Solicitor for the respondents
other than the respondents
G.R. Newman, D. Crump and J.B. White: Harry Nowicki and Co.

JUDGE1

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia ("the Union") is an organisation, registered pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1988 ("the Act"). By virtue of s. 192(a) of the Act, it is a body corporate. It has a number of branches, including its Victorian branch ("the branch"). The parties to this proceeding are the members of the branch committee of management, which is constituted by rule 30(a) of the rules of the Union. Under rule 30(d), the branch committee of management has specific powers to, "Vote and expend any money that may be necessary in connexion with the business of the Branch", and, "Determine what salaries or other remuneration shall be paid to Branch Officers and others employed by the Branch".

The first applicant is a member of the branch committee of management by virtue of holding the office of branch trustee. The branch has two trustees. The other is the respondent Weir. Under rule 32(d), the duties of a branch trustee include: being responsible for the safe custody of all documents, securities and accumulated funds of the branch; subject to the direction of the branch committee of management, controlling all property of the branch; and investing any accumulated funds of the branch in securities allowed by law as the branch committee of management may direct.
On 28th October 1991, the applicants obtained a rule to show cause,…

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 McGee, S. v Sanders, J.H.

Details

AGLC: McGee, S. & Anor v. Sanders, J.H. & Ors [1991] FCA 701 ((1991) 32 FCR 397; (1991) 39 IR 400)
Case: [1991] FCA 701
Decision Date: 15 NOVEMBER 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McGee and Sanders were involved in a dispute concerning the operation and governance of a registered organisation. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court. The crux of the dispute centred on the validity of a resolution made by the branch committee of management, which appeared to restrict the right of members to inspect branch documents. Additionally, the case examined whether the inspection right could be exercised jointly with an external party, such as an accountant, and if there was an entitlement to obtain photocopies of the documents in question. The applicant sought interim orders, but the court had to consider whether these orders would effectively determine the final outcome of the dispute.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the enforceability of the resolution that limited the inspection rights of the members, the interpretation of the rules concerning document inspection, and the scope of permissible accompaniment during such inspections. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to photocopies of the documents and the implications of the interim orders on the final resolution of the dispute. The court had to weigh the urgency and necessity of the interim orders against the potential final outcome of the proceedings.

In its decision, the court meticulously examined the rules and their interpretation, determining that the resolution in question was not valid as it infringed upon the members' rights. The court held that the inspection right could indeed be exercised in the company of an accountant, thus broadening the scope of permissible accompaniment. Regarding the entitlement to photocopies, the court found that such a right existed under the rules. However, in granting interim orders, the court took into account the potential final outcome of the dispute, ensuring that the interim measures did not prejudge the final resolution. The court ultimately provided clarity on these points, guiding both parties on their rights and obligations moving forward.

The final orders of the court clarified the rights of the members to inspect documents, the permissible accompaniment during inspections, and the entitlement to photocopies. The court also outlined the considerations for granting interim orders, ensuring they did not unduly influence the final outcome of the dispute. This decision provided a definitive resolution to the immediate concerns while paving the way for a fair and just final determination of the matter.

Orders