Roughan, Patrick John v Coulson, Maxwell Roy

[1983] FCA 337

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	M .	22 O f 1 9 8 3
)

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION 1

I N THE MATTER of the Conci l ia t ion and

A r b i t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 0 4

AND I N THE MATTERof an appl ica t ion under

sect ions 1 4 0 and 1 4 1 of t h e said A c t

BETWEEN : PATRICK JOHN ROUGHAN

~ p p l i c a n t

AND : -.

Respondents

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	Waves J.
DATE OF ORDER:	2 4 Mvember 1 9 8 3

MADE:	WHERE	Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Paragraph 2 of t h e order made he re in on 31 October

1 9 8 3 be set aside.

2 . There be no order as t o t h e costs of t h e proceedings

commenced by r u l e t o show cause granted t o t h e appli-

cant on 1 0 August 1983.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1

N Z W SOUTH WALES DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	?b.	22 Of 1983
)

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION 1

I N THE MATTER of t h e Conciliation and

Arbitration A c t 1 9 0 4

AND I N THE MATTER of an appl ica t ion under

sections 1 4 0 and 1 4 1 of the said A c t

BETWEEN : PATRICK JOHN ROUGHAN

Applicant

AND : -

R e s p o n d e n t s

-	CORAM:	e a v e s J.
DATE:	-	2 4 November 1 9 8 3

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1.

On 3 1 October 1983 I gave judgment i n t h i s

matter and discharged the rule granted on 1 0 August 1983

to Pa t r ick John Fbughan ( " the app l i can t " ) ca l l i ng upon

The Australasian %a t Industry Bnployees' Union and t h e

persons comprising the Cbnunittee of Management of t h e

Newcastle and Northern Branch of t h a t Union ("the respon-

d e n t s " ) t o show cause why cer ta in o rders under sec t ions

1 4 0 and 1 4 1 of t h e m n c f l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 0 4

(" the A c t " ) should not be made.

In making t h a t o r d e r I a lso d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e

appl icant pay the cos ts o f the respondents , the cos ts o f

The Australasian Meat Industry Bnployees' Union ( " the Union")

t o be those of a submitt ing party. That order was made

consequentially upon the o rde r d i scha rg ing t he ru l e t o

show cause. My a t t e n t i o n was not d i r ec t ed t o sec t ion 197A

o f t h e A c t which, so f a r as mater ia l , provides -

"197A.	A	p a r t y	t o -
(a) ...

(b) a proceeding, includmg an appeal,

b e f o r e t h e m u r t , o r before a c o u r t of a

State o r T e r r i t o r y , i n a matter a r i s i n g under

t h i s Act; or

(c) ...

sha l l no t be o rde red t o pay any costs incurred

by any o ther par ty to tha t p roceeding except

where the par ty aga ins t whom t h e o r d e r i s made

ins t i tu ted the p roceeding vexa t ious ly or without

reasonable cause.' '

2.

Upon motion by the appl icant heard on 1 8

mvember 1983 and i n e x e r c i s e o f t h e power conferred by

Grder 35, r u l e 7 of the Federal Court Rules I set a s i d e

t h e o r d e r f o r c o s t s and heard argument on an app l i ca t ion

on behalf of t he r e sponden t s t ha t an o rde r fo r costs be

made aga ins t t he app l i can t on t he ground r e f e r a b l e t o

sec t ion 197A. of t h e A c t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t i n s t i t u t e d

the proceedings without reasonable cause.

Cbunsel fo r t he r e sponden t s r e f e r r ed t o t h e

t h r e e areas of argument i n the proceedings -

(a) t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n s o f t h e Cbmmittee of Manage-

ment a t i t s meeting on 2 May 1983 f o r t h e

employment of Mr. Murray Bennett as a temporary

r e l i e f o r g a n i s e r were not wi th in the powers

conferred on the Ummittee by the Federal Rules

of t h e Union properly construed;

(b) t h a t , i n so fa r as the Federal Rules of t h e

Union au tho r i sed t he employment of Mr. Bennett as

a temporary r e l i e f o r g a n i s e r , t h e r u l e s were

inva l id ; and

(c) t h a t t h e Cbmmittee i n r e s o l v i n g t o employ Mr.

Bennett had not ac ted bona f i d e .

The fac ts , he submitted, were not se r ious ly i n d i spu te and

t h e r e was no subs t ance i n any of the proposit ions advanced

on behalf of the app l i can t . The case made fo r t he app l i can t

w a s , so it was a rgued , e s sen t i a l ly i r r econc i l ab le w i th t he

3 .

I

judgment of t h e Full Court of t h i s ( b u r t i n Roughan v.

Coulson & O r s . (1982) 2 I .R . 145; 3 I .R. 393.

I agree with the submission made on behalf of

the respondents tha t , i f t h e o n l y i s s u e i n the ca se had

been the ques t ion of t h e bona f i d e s of t h e Cbmmittee of

Managemen$, a very s t rong case could be made for an order

f o r cos ts pnder sec t ion 197A. o f t h e Act on the ground that

Y

the prpceedings had been ins t i tu ted 'wi thout reasonable

.. e

cause. l%$iuou"ld be so because no ma te r i a l of any substance

-. L - >.

was put forward to support the submission and the app l i can t ,

_.

- ..

i n evidence,. expressly disclaimed any intention on his part

t o impute mala f i d e s t o t h e members of t h e (bmmittee.

Ibwever, t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e bona f i d e s of t h e

(bmmittee of Management was n o t t h e o n l y i s s u e i n t h e c a s e

and, although I re jec ted each of the o ther submiss ions made

on the app l i can t ' s beha l f , t ha t o f itself i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t

t o j u s t i f y t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e was no reasonable basis

for t h e i n s t i t u t i o n of the proceedings: The Queen v. Moore;

Ex parte Federated Miscellaneolls Vbrkers' Union of Aus t r a l i a

(1978) 1 4 0 C.L.R. 4 7 0 per Gibbs J. a t p. 473.

I n Heidt v. Chrysler: AUstralia Ltd. ( 1 9 7 6 ) 26 F.L.R.

257 a t p. 272 Northrop J. set o u t t h e p o l i c y of s ec t ion 197A.

o f t he A c t i n t h e following terms -

4 .

“It i s designed t o free p a r t i e s from t h e

r i sk o f hav ing t o pay the costs of an opposing

par ty . A t t h e same time the s ec t ion p rov ides

a pro tec t ion to par t ies defending proceedings

which have been in s t i t u t ed vexa t ious ly or

without reasonable cause. This protect ion i s

i n t h e form of confer r ing a power i n t h e c o u r t

t o o r d e r c o s t s a g a i n s t a pa r ty who, i n substance,

inst i tutes proceedings which i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s

may c o n s t i t u t e an abuse of the process of a court .”

After r e fe r r ing t o r epor t ed dec i s ions where cour t s have

. t

considered the exercise of summary powers t o terminate

-

- S

proceediiigs on the ground that they do not disclose a

- -

reasonabG oZ,pr$able cause of ac t ion , h i s Bnour s a id

’..‘a	.. ..
-	, , .

a t p. 274 - % - a .

. .

“Section:397A i s t o be considered when

proceedings i n the court have been completed

and dismissed. The p r i n c i p l e s set o u t above

a r e t o be appl ied a t an ea r ly s t age o f t he

course of the proceedings. In my opinion,

s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e s are t o be appl ied when

consider ing the matters r a i sed by S. 197A.

Great care must be exe rc i sed t o ensu re t ha t

i n f i n d i n g t h a t a pa r ty has i n s t i t u t ed p ro -

ceedings vexat iously or without reasonable

cause , tha t par ty i s not improperly deprived

of h i s freedom from l i a b i l i t y t o pay c o s t s

to an opposing par ty . The t e s t i s a sub-

s t a n t i a l one.”

Such d i f f i cu l ty a s t he p re sen t ca se p re sen ted

l ay i n t he &ons t ruc t ion o f t h e r e l evan t pa r t s o f t he

Federal Rules of t h e Union. That d i f fe ren t conc lus ions

a r e open a s t o t h e i r t r u e meaning and e f f e c t i s apparent

from a considerat ion of the views expressed i n mughan v.

Coulson & Or S. supra. That case was concerned with the

meaning and e f f e c t of t h e r u l e s r e l a t i n g t o the termination

5.

by t h e (bmmittee of Management of t h e se rv ices of an

e lec ted o rganiser . The present case was concerned with

a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n - t h e power of the (bmmittee of

Management t o employ a temporary r e l i e f o r g a n i s e r .

Although much ass i s tance was t o be gained from a considera-

t i o n of what was s a i d i n t h e judgments i n t h e earlier case,

I do not think it is c o r r e c t t o r e g a r d t h a t d e c i s i o n a s

being decis ive of t he ma t t e r s which the app l i can t wished

t o r a i s e i n the present proceedings.

In a l l t he c i r cums tances I t h i n k it i s

appropr i a t e t o	make	no	o r d e r a s t o t h e c o s t s	of	t h e
proceedings.

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s and t h e f i v e

(5) preceding pages are a t r u e

copy of t h e Reasons f o r Judgment

here in of the mnourable M r .

J u s t i c e Neaves.

Date: 24 Mvember 1983

I- 0 -C=---w--

Associate

6.