JUDGE:	RIORDAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 July 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Setka v Carroll & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 571

---

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – Motion to expel member from the ALP – Jurisdiction of the Court to intervene for non-compliance with the constitution of the association – Constitution conferring no contractual rights – Whether jurisdiction arises from statutory recognition of political parties –Whether jurisdiction arises from plaintiff’s interests in ALP property or the effects of the motion on plaintiff’s livelihood and reputation – Whether Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358 is distinguishable – Edgar and Walker v Mead (1917) 23 CLR 29 considered – Baldwin v Everingham (1993) 1 Qd R 10 not followed – Proceeding dismissed.

DECLARATORY RELIEF – Whether declaratory relief limited to protection or enforcement of rights and liabilities enforceable in the courts.

CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTION OF UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION – Principles to be applied considered – Motion to expel a member not in compliance with Victorian Branch Rules – Whether constitution conferred National Executive with unlimited powers to expel members.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr Geoffrey Kennett QC and Mr Christopher Tran	Doogue + George
For the Defendants	Mr Michael Borsky QC and Ms Simona Gory	Holding Redlich

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reasons................................................................................................................................................ 1

Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

The proposed expulsion motion................................................................................................ 1
Structure of the ALP..................................................................................................................... 1
The National Constitution........................................................................................................... 1
Rules of the Victorian Branch of the ALP.................................................................................. 1

The issues for determination........................................................................................................... 1

Question 1 - Whether the legitimacy of the expulsion motion is amenable to declaratory and/or injunctive relief............................................................................................................................. 1

Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................. 1
Defendants’ submissions............................................................................................................. 1
Principles........................................................................................................................................ 1
Can Cameron v Hogan be distinguished on the basis of subsequent statutory recognition of political parties?...................................................................................................... 1
Cases applying Baldwin v Everingham............................................................................... 1
Can Cameron v Hogan be distinguished on the basis of rights to the property of the ALP? 1
Can Cameron v Hogan be distinguished on the basis of the financial and reputational effects of expulsion?................................................................................................................. 1

Conclusion on justiciability......................................................................................................... 1

Question 2 - Is the power of the National Executive to expel a member under cl 16(d) of the National Constitution subject to any limitation requiring compliance with cl 20 of the Victorian Rules? 1

Principles of construction for rules of a voluntary association............................................. 1
Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................. 1
Defendants’ submissions............................................................................................................. 1
Conclusion on construction question........................................................................................ 1
Textual considerations........................................................................................................ 1
Contextual considerations.................................................................................................. 1
Clause 16(d) as a ‘plenary power’........................................................................ 1
The context of the ALP structure......................................................................... 1
Amendments to cl 16(d)........................................................................................ 1
Previous applications of cl 16(d)......................................................................... 1
The plaintiff’s interpretation of cl 16(d) is practically unworkable................ 1

Question 3 - Should the Court refrain on discretionary grounds from granting relief?...... 1

Orders................................................................................................................................................... 1

List of Cases Cited

Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia v Fontana…

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 Setka v Carroll

Details

AGLC: Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571
Case: [2019] VSC 571
Decision Date: 27 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Setka v Carroll is a case involving the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and its handling of a member expulsion motion. The plaintiff, Mr Setka, sought a declaration that the motion to expel him from the ALP was invalid and an injunction to prevent his expulsion. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to intervene in the internal affairs of the ALP, whether the constitution of the association conferred any contractual rights, and whether the motion to expel complied with the ALP's constitution. The court also considered whether declaratory relief was available in this context.

The court examined the principles for interpreting the constitution of an unincorporated association, particularly whether the motion to expel Mr Setka complied with the Victorian Branch Rules. The court held that the ALP's constitution did not confer unlimited powers on the National Executive to expel members. The court also determined that the plaintiff's interests in ALP property or the effects on his livelihood and reputation were not sufficient grounds for the court to intervene in the association's internal affairs. The court distinguished the case from Cameron v Hogan and did not follow Baldwin v Everingham, concluding that the motion to expel was not in compliance with the ALP's constitution.

The court dismissed the proceeding, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the internal affairs of the ALP. The court further held that declaratory relief was not available in this context, as it was not limited to the protection or enforcement of rights and liabilities enforceable in the courts. The court emphasised the importance of respecting the autonomy of unincorporated associations, such as the ALP, in managing their internal affairs.

The final orders of the court were that the proceeding be dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The court did not grant any relief to the plaintiff and upheld the decision of the ALP to expel Mr Setka from the party.

Orders