Mellor, S. (inquiry into an election in Federated Liquor & Anor)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

)

Q6 of

1986

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

)

APPLICATION BY SHIRLEY MELLOR FOR AN INQUIRY INTO AN

ELECTION IN

THE FEDERATED LIOUOR

AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES

EMPLOYEES UNION OF AUSTRALIA

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:	10 OCTOBER 1986
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

This matter be

determmed by the Court

at a hearing

to commence on Monday, 17 November 1986.

2 . The affidavlts to be relied upon be filed and

served:

(a)	On behalf of J.E. Curtls, by way of supplementary materlal only, as soon as reasonably possible after such materlal becomes available to the said J.E. Curtls.
(b)	On behalf of the applicant, Shlrley Mellor, on or before 17 October 1986.

(c)

On behalf of Messrs. Elton and Hardle on

before 31 October 1986.

2A.

Oral evidence may be called at the hearing by leave

only on the Court's being satisfied that special

circumstances exist necessitating the giving of

such leave.

2B.

The persons who, to the knowledge of the said J.E.

Curtis, make direct accusations relevant to the

case against either or both of Messrs. Elton or

Hardie be approached

to make affidavits, and

that

such affidavits be filed

as soon as possible, and

if any of such persons is unwilling to make any

affidavit, that he be subpoenaed

and called at the

hearing on behalf of

the said J . E . Curtis.

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with In

Order 36 of the Federal Court

Rules.

. -

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

)

9UEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

)

Q6 of 1986

DIVISION

INDUSTRIAL

)

AFFLICATION BY SHIRLEY MELLOR FOR AN INOUIRY INTO AN

ELECTION IN THE FEDERATED LIOUOR

AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES

EMPLOYEES UNION

OF AUSTRALIA

PINCUS J.

10 October 1986

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In thls matter

Mr. Hanuer Q.C.. who appears with Mr.

Diehm for Mr. Curtis, has drawn

my attentlon to the fact that the

inquiry may

somewhat embarrassed

if.

on the date set for

hearmu - which is

now 17 November 1986 - it is unclear what

material is properlv before the court.

Mr. Jerrard of counsel has

pomted out that some of the

material, and In particular the sheets, Exhlblt "W", conslsts

conclusions

well

statements

prlmary

fact.

importantly, Mr.

Jerrard says that the answers to the circulars

which constitute the large proportion	of the primary facts should
not be recelved.

The view which

I took when the matter was last before me

was that

a proper conclusion could be drawn from the material

without the necessity

of calling for the persons who have answered

circulars, and I adhere to that

view.

is, of

course, open to any party to seek to call

before the trial judge such oral evidence as he

sees fit, but it

has

been my purpose to try to ensure that

the matter

1 s heard

expeditiously and justly. Section 164(4) of

the Conciliation and

Arbitration Act produces the result

that the procedure of

the

Court is, subject to the Act and Regulations, wlthin the Court's discretion and:

"the Court is not bound to act in

a formal manner

and 1s

not bound by any rules of evidence but may

inform itself on any

matter

in such manner

as It

thinks just.

As I understand the attitude of Mr. Jerrard's clients,

they propose to at least consider ignoring the

order I made when

the matter was last before me for filing of affidavits on

thelr

behalf, to attempt to conduct the matter as

if it were a crimlnal

trial by taking objection to the evidence and then, depending on

the result of the objection, deciding what course

they wlll take:

whether to call evidence or not. It is not

my intention to permit

that to happen, and

therefore accede to

Mr. Hanger

Q.C.'s

suggestion that

should rule now on the polnts ralsed by Mr.

Jerrard, rather than leaving the whole matter to Gray

I had

initially thought it was convenient to leave Gray

J. to deal with

all evidentlary points, but it turns out not to

be so.

I therefore rule as follows:

that the answers to

the

clrculars are properly received in evidence, and that under

s.l64(4)(b) the statements

conclusions made in the summary

sheets, Exhibit

" W " ,

need not be

deleted.

As to the latter, they

seem to me to be innocuous, the summary sheets are really just

ready reference. and it

is inconceivable to me that

an:?

Judge

would uive any particular weight to concluslons that others mlqht

draw from

the primary material, all

of which

has

been made

available to the Court.

I therefore decline to strike out any of the evldence

which is objected to.

The orders which were made when the matter

was last before me on 2

October need to be varied. Order 1

will

be deleted and replaced by the following order:

The matter be determined by the Court at a hearlng

commence on Monday, 17 November

1986.

Order 2 requires to be varied in the following fashion.	2 ( a ) will
read :

On behalf of

J .E .

Curtis, by way of supplementary material

only, as soon

reasonably possible after such material

becomes available to the said

J . E .

Curtis.

2(b), will be:

On behalf of the applicant Shirley Mellor, on or before	17
October 1986.

2(c), will be

as it is.

There will also be

an order 2A:

Oral evidence may be called at the hearing by leave only

the Court's being satisfied that special circumstances exist

necessitating the giving of such leave.

4 .

I wlll add order

2B:

That the persons

who, to the knowledge

of the sald

J.E.

Curtis, make direct accusations relevant to the case against

either or both of Messrs. Elton

or Hardie be approached to

make affidavits and that such affidavits be filed as soon

possible, and if any

of such persons is unwillinu to make any

affidavit, that he be subpoenaed and called at the hearing on

behalf of the said J.E. Curtis.

Order number 3 of my previous order made on

2 October 1986 is now

spent, and will be deleted. There seems to be no necessity to

make a change in the subsequent orders.

certlfy

tbat thl; and

the 3 precedlng

r -	-5 are a true copy of the reasons for
1 ' ' '	vent hcreln of HIS Honour
Mr	Justlce Plncus

Dated 10 6

/qgG

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Shirley Mellor's application for an inquiry into an election within the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia was considered. The primary focus of the case was to determine the validity of the election process and the admissibility of certain evidence. This application arose from concerns about the fairness and transparency of the election, with Shirley Mellor seeking an investigation into the process.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, particularly Section 164(4), which allows the Court to determine the procedure and the rules of evidence. The court had to decide whether the answers to circulars and summary sheets, which contained both primary facts and conclusions, could be admitted as evidence. Additionally, the court needed to address the potential for oral evidence to be called and the conditions under which such evidence could be presented.

The court ruled that the answers to the circulars were properly received as evidence and that the summary sheets, which included conclusions, need not be deleted. Pincus J. determined that the primary material, which was available to the court, was sufficient for a proper conclusion to be drawn without requiring the presence of the individuals who answered the circulars. The court also addressed the procedural aspects, clarifying that oral evidence could only be called with leave if special circumstances warranted it. Furthermore, the court mandated that those making direct accusations relevant to the case against Messrs. Elton or Hardie should be approached to make affidavits, with subpoenas issued if necessary.

The final orders included a hearing date set for 17 November 1986 and specific deadlines for filing affidavits. The court also stipulated that the answers to the circulars and the summary sheets would be admissible, and that the procedural flexibility allowed by Section 164(4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act would be respected. These orders aimed to ensure that the matter was heard expeditiously and justly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established