Walker, Judith v McLeod, K.H.

[1984] FCA 40

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	N.S.W. No.8 of 1984
)

DIVISION INDUSTRIAL )

N - B :

JUDITH WALKER

Applicant

m:

Respondents

ORDER

JUDGE MAKING	ORDER:	Beaumont J.
WHERE MADE:	Sydney
m:	6 March 1984

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Fix 26 March 1984 for the final hearing of the proceeding.

2. Direct that the applicant file and serve points of claim on

or before 13 March 1984.

3. Direct that the respondents file and serve points of defence

on or before 21 March 1984.

4. Upon the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to

damages, order, until further order, in accordance with

-2-

paragraphs 1 and 2 of the interim orders sought in the Rule

to show cause dated 1 March 1984.

5. Reserve liberty to the respondents to apply on 24 hours’

notice to vary or discharge the orders made in paragraph 4.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY 1 N.S.W. No.8 oi 1984

)

DIVISION INDUSTRIAL )

BETWEEN:

JUDITH W K E R

Applicant

m:

Respondents

CORAM: Beaumont	J.
6 March 1984

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for interlocutory injunctive

relief made in proceedings seeking orders under s.141 of the

! Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904.

In the principal proceedings, the applicant challenges

the validity of certain resolutions purportedly carried by a

special general meeting of the New South Wales Branch of the

Australian Insurance Employees Union. The applicant was, and

claims she still is, the secretary of the Branch and an

additional delegate of the Branch to the Federal Executive of the

2.

Union. The respondents are all members of the Federal Executive.

The resolutions now challenged found the applicant guilty of a

number of substantial breaches of the rules of the Union and

guilty of "gross misbehaviour" in a number of respects and then

dismissed her from the two offices mentioned.

The applicant claims interim relief restraining the

respondents from acting on the resolutions now impugned pending

the final hearing of the principal proceedings. That hearing is

fixed to commence on 26 March 1984.

The applicant puts her case in a number of ways but, in

the circumstances, I need deal with one only of the arguments

advanced. In her principal affidavit, upon which she was not

cross-examined, the applicant conceded that, shortly after 9

January 1984, she was given written notice of the terms of the

resolutions proposed to be put at the meeting to be held on 24

February. She also said that at the meeting, there was

distributed to each person present a lengthy booklet entitled

"Motions and Exhibits". The booklet, as its title suggests,

contained the motions proposed and copies of the documentary

material relied on in support of the resolutions intended to be

put. Although it would take some time to read the material which

was considerable in volume, the applicant was given a copy of the

booklet only "shortly prior" to the commencement of the meeting.

The applicant says that, in the circumstances, she was not

afforded sufficient time in which to prepare her defence, given

3.

the lateness of delivery and size of the material used against

her. She submits that the rules of natural justice were not

observed in this respect (see m v Harradine C19753 25 F.L.R.

336 at p.343). In my opinion, there is a serious question to be

tried in this regard (see Australian Coarse Grain Pool Ptv. Ltd.

v Barlev Marketins Board of Oueensland C19823 46 A.L.R. 398). In

the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the other

arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant.

On the balance of convenience, prima facie at least, the

status quo should be preserved. However, the respondents submit

that, by reason of the serious nature of the charges made against

the applicant, it is inappropriate that she continue to occupy

the offices from which she has now been dismissed. There is

force in the submission but I think that, in the main, it is met

by expediting the final hearing, which I have now done. At the same time, it is appropriate that liberty be preserved to the respondents to apply on short notice to discharge the injunction

I propose to grant should they be advised that such an

application is necessary to protect the interests of the Union.

! I rerh'fy that this and the 2 preceding

pas- QFe a true copy of the reasons for

ju&fnwf herein of The Honourable

- .

, :. I L:s.:ce Beaumont.

3,ed 6 V A , \?g$-