Viskovic v Vuleta - [2005] WASC 92

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: VISKOVIC -v- VULETA & ORS [2005] WASC 92

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 19 APRIL 2005

DELIVERED : 19 APRIL 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 1427 of 2005

BETWEEN: DAVOR LUKA VISKOVIC
Plaintiff
AND
HAZEL VULETA
ROSLYN SLAVICH
DANIEL SLAVICH
RATKO CVITAN
ILONKA DAMJANOVICH
ILIJA ERCEG
IVAN KATICH
ANTE RADALJ
BRANKO VULETA
NIKICA YAKSICH
Defendants

Catchwords:

Equity - Interlocutory injunction sought to restrain disciplinary meeting of incorporated association

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr J Eastoe
Defendants: Mr K G Robson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Jonathan Eastoe
Defendants: Mossensons

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Football League & Ors v Carlton Football Club [1998] 2 VR 546
Harris v Liberal Party of Australia, WA Division Inc [2003] WASC 243
Rush v WA Amateur Football League Inc [2003] WASC 70

Case(s) also cited:

Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358
Clark v Rowell Consulting Services & Anor [2003] WASC 178
Corporate Affairs Commission v Drysdale [1978] HCA 52; (1978) 141 CLR 236
De Falco v Crawley Borough Council [1980] QB 450
Hall v New South Wales Trotting Club Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 378
International General Electric Company of New York Ltd & Anor v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1962] 1 Ch 784
Jago v District Court of NSW [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23
Johnson v Miller (1987) 59 CLR 467
R v Blizzard [1993] 1 Qd R 151
R v Thames Magistrates Court; Ex parte Polemis (1974) 2 All ER 1219
Re Wood (1988) 167 CLR 145
Scott v Handley [1999] FCA 404
Underhill v Ministry of Food [1950] 1 All ER 591
Zusman v Royal Western Australian Bowling Association (Inc) [1999] WASC 86

EM HEENAN J: I am sitting this afternoon to deal with an urgent application for an interlocutory injunction sought by Mr Davor Luka Viskovic against 10 persons who are some, but not all, of the members of the management committee of the Stirling Adriatic Centre Inc.
The relief sought by the chamber summons is an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants until judgment in the action, or until further order, from exercising any right or power to suspend or expel the plaintiff from the incorporated association known as Stirling Adriatic Centre Inc pursuant to the defendants' resolution of 8 March 2005 or pursuant to any resolution passed at the defendants' meeting on 19 April 2005 or any adjournment thereof. The reference to a meeting of 19 April 2005 is a reference to a meeting which has been scheduled to be held by the management committee this evening.
This application for an interlocutory injunction is brought in proceedings commenced by a writ of summons issued by the plaintiff on 14 April 2005. In the writ the indorsement of claim asserts that the plaintiff is, and at all material times has been, a member of Stirling Adriatic Centre Inc ("the Club") and that the defendants are the…

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 Viskovic v Vuleta

Details

AGLC: Viskovic v Vuleta [2005] WASC 92
Case: [2005] WASC 92
Decision Date: 19 APRIL 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Viskovic v Vuleta involves a dispute between members of an incorporated association, specifically concerning the enforcement of the association's constitution. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from proceeding with a disciplinary meeting against the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could be restrained from holding a disciplinary meeting as outlined in the association's constitution. The court had to consider the enforceability of the constitution, the nature of the dispute between the members, and whether an interlocutory injunction was appropriate in the circumstances. Furthermore, the court had to assess the balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable harm if the meeting proceeded.

The court ruled that the constitution of the association was binding and enforceable. It determined that the plaintiff's conduct warranted a disciplinary meeting as per the constitution. The court emphasised that the association's constitution was a binding document that must be adhered to by all members. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant, and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm if the meeting proceeded. Consequently, the court declined to grant the interlocutory injunction.

The court ordered that the disciplinary meeting proceed as scheduled, with the plaintiff participating. The court emphasised the importance of following the constitution of the association and the need for internal processes to be followed in a fair and transparent manner.

Orders