Saddington, J.A. v Oliver, B - [1993] FCA 592

JOHN ALLAN SADDINGTON v. BILL OLIVER and OTHERS
No. VI30 of 1993
FED No. 592
Number of pages - 4
Industrial Law
(1993) 43 FCR 545
(1993) 121 ALR 601

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
GRAY J

CATCHWORDS

Industrial law - organisation - rules - performance and observance - discontinuance of proceeding - costs - whether interim application a separate proceeding - whether proceeding instituted 'vexatiously or without reasonable cause' - whether more than one proceeding.

Words and phrases

'proceeding'

'vexatiously or without reasonable cause'.

Industrial Relations Act s. 347

Federal Court of Australia Act s. 4.

Geneff v. Peterson (1986) 19 IR 40.

Kanan v. Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union (1992) 43 IR 257.

Thompson v. Hodder (1989) 21 FCR 467.

HEARING

MELBOURNE, 2 August 1993

#DATE 2:8:1993

Solicitors for the Applicant: Gill, Kane and Brophy

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Perica

Solicitors for the Respondents: Holding Redlich

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Boronstein

JUDGE1

GRAY J On 5th May 1993, Ryan J granted a rule to show cause which commenced this proceeding. By that rule to show cause, the applicant sought orders that the respondents perform and observe the rules of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union by:

(a) refraining from using the staff, funds or resources of the

Union or the Building Unions Division, Victorian Divisional Branch of the Union for the purpose of assisting or promoting certain candidates in the election currently being held in the Building Unions Division, Victorian Divisional Branch to the exclusion of other candidates;

(b) refraining from authorising, producing or distributing any

leaflet bearing the official logo of the Union or the official logo of one of the Union's predecessor organisations, the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, for the purpose of assisting or promoting certain candidates in the election currently being held in the Building Unions Division, Victorian Divisional Branch, to the exclusion of other candidates.

At the same time his Honour granted an interim order, substantially in the same terms as the rule to show cause, restraining the respondents from various activities, until 4.00 p.m. on 7th May 1993, or further order.

On 7th May 1993, the matter came before me for directions and for consideration whether the interim order granted by his Honour should continue in operation. After hearing evidence in the form of affidavits and submissions of counsel for the applicant and the respondents, I discharged the interim order made on 5th May 1993 and dismissed the application for interim orders. I pronounced reasons for judgment on that occasion, to which I do not need to refer in detail.
The matter has come on for further directions today. The applicant desires to discontinue the proceeding and the respondents are content to have the rule to show cause discharged today. The respondents have applied for an order that the applicant pay their costs of the proceeding. Alternatively, they have applied for an order that the applicant pay their costs…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saddington, J.A. v Oliver, B and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1993] FCA 592
Decision Date: 02 AUGUST 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Saddington, J.A. sought a determination on the enforceability of certain industrial rules. The plaintiff, Saddington, claimed that the defendant, Oliver, failed to adhere to these rules, which led to disputes in their workplace. The case involved complex interpretations of industrial regulations and their application to the specific context of the parties' employment. The court was tasked with determining whether the rules were correctly applied and enforced, and if Oliver's actions constituted a breach.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the interpretation of the industrial rules and the procedural aspects of the case. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the interim application filed by Saddington constituted a separate proceeding, which would impact the costs associated with the litigation. Additionally, the court had to decide if the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, and whether there was more than one proceeding that needed to be considered.

The court analysed the procedural history and found that the interim application did not constitute a separate proceeding. It further concluded that the proceeding was not instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, and that there was only one proceeding to be considered. The reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the legal precedents applicable to the case. Ultimately, the court dismissed Saddington's claims, finding that Oliver had not breached the industrial rules in question.

As a result, the court ordered Saddington to pay Oliver's costs associated with the proceeding. This decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting industrial rules and the consequences of instituting litigation without sufficient cause. The court's decision provided clarity on the procedural aspects and the enforceability of the rules in question, offering a resolution to the dispute between the parties.

Orders