Mulholland v Funnell - [2014] VSC 349

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
PRACTICE COURT

S CI 2014 03617

JOHN MULHOLLAND	Plaintiff
v
PAUL FUNNELL	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	GINNANE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 and 18 July 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 July 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mulholland v Funnell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 349

---

Clubs And Associations – Political party – Democratic Labor Party – Entitlement of defendant to use title Federal President – Convening of State Conference – Validity – Interlocutory injunction refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr D Hanna	Direct Brief

HIS HONOUR:

This matter came before me yesterday, Mr Mulholland having issued a writ and a summons on Tuesday, 15 July 2014. Mr Mulholland seeks interlocutory injunctions restraining Mr Paul Funnell, the defendant, from describing himself, representing himself or holding himself out as Federal Secretary, or it may have been intended to mean President, of the Democratic Labor Party (the “DLP”), while present in Victoria or while communicating with members or prospective members of the DLP and from convening, arranging, organising or conducting any part of any meeting or Conference that purports to be a DLP meeting or Conference in Victoria. He sought, also, declarations that a meeting or Conference proposed to be held at Scoresby tomorrow was not in accordance with the DLP Constitution and Rules and that, insofar as it purported to be, it was in all respects void.

The defendant, and others associated with him, have purported to convene a Victorian State Conference tomorrow at 10am. The agenda for that Conference lists 18 items, Item 14 of which is that this State Branch of the DLP has confidence in the State Executive. That motion is referrable to a particular rule which I refer to later in these reasons. There are also on the agenda three motions which raise policy issues. As I have said, the summons sought declarations that the Conference was in effect invalid. But as argument developed, Mr Mulholland really sought orders that the Conference not go ahead.

The matter came before me yesterday ex parte, and I adjourned it until today and gave directions to endeavour to ensure that Mr Funnell was aware of the proceedings. Mr Hanna of counsel appeared for him this morning. Mr Funnell relies on his own affidavit and that of Mr Michael Murphy. Mr Murphy was the registered officer of the DLP in Victoria and was cross-examined on his affidavit. Mr Mulholland has sworn a lengthy affidavit with many exhibits to which I have given close attention.

The background to the matter includes proceedings in this court before Robson J, which were concluded by orders given on 2 December 2013.[1] Those proceedings were between Mr Kevin Butler and Mr Mulholland. Robson J declared that the State Executive of the Victorian Branch of the DLP immediately following upon its 2008 Victorian State Conference consisted of, (1) Kevin Butler as President;…

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 Mulholland v Funnell

Details

AGLC: Mulholland v Funnell [2014] VSC 349
Case: [2014] VSC 349
Decision Date: 18 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mulholland v Funnell involved the Democratic Labor Party and its members, specifically addressing whether the defendant was entitled to use the title of Federal President and the validity of a State Conference convened by the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation of party rules concerning the title of Federal President and the legitimacy of a State Conference held without proper authorisation. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions were in accordance with the party's constitution and rules, and whether the convening of the State Conference was valid.

The court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to the title of Federal President as per the party's constitution and rules. It was determined that the defendant's actions in convening a State Conference without proper authorisation were invalid. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to established procedures and the authority of the party's constitution in governing internal matters. Consequently, the defendant's application for an interlocutory injunction was refused.

The court's decision affirmed the importance of party rules and constitution in governing the internal affairs of political organisations. The court's ruling ensured that party titles and procedures were respected, maintaining the integrity of the party's governance structure. The final orders of the court were that the defendant was not entitled to use the title of Federal President and that the State Conference convened by the defendant was invalid.

Orders