Mcjannett v Bulloch

In the Federal Court of Australia, Mcjannett sought an inquiry into an election held by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Western Australia Branch, and interim orders to halt the proposed election. The applicant alleged that his nomination for various positions in the 2012 election ballot was defective due to a failure to pay membership dues. He claimed that the union had refused to accept his payment attempts and manipulated membership records to prevent his nomination. The union argued that the applicant had not been a financial member for the required period, and the returning officer had acted appropriately.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established reasonable grounds for an inquiry into the election and interim orders to halt it. The court had to determine if the applicant's allegations were sufficient to warrant an inquiry and whether the returning officer had acted improperly in rejecting the applicant's nomination.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated reasonable grounds for an inquiry into the election or interim orders to halt it. The court considered the applicant's allegations of union misconduct and record manipulation, but found that they were not substantiated by sufficient evidence. The court also found that the returning officer had acted within his authority in rejecting the applicant's nomination based on the union's membership records. The court held that the applicant had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his case, nor had he demonstrated that the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief.

The court dismissed the substituted originating application for inquiry and the originating application for interim orders. The court found that the applicant had not made out a case for an inquiry into the election or for interim orders to halt it. The court held that the returning officer had acted appropriately in rejecting the applicant's nomination, and that the applicant had not shown that the union's actions were improper or unlawful.