Willis, Francis Kevin v Battese, Noel

[1979] FCA 56

?

I

L+," I N TIIE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRRTAIA

5b .

INDUSTRIAL D I V I S I O N V. No. 1 8 oi 1 9 7 9 .

VICTORIA D I S T R I C T REGISTRY

B E T W E E N :

FRANCIS KEVIN W I L L I S C l a m a n t

and

NOEL BATTESE R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	N o r t h r o p J.
DATE :	31 M a y , 1 9 7 9
WHERE MADE:	M e l b o u r n e
ORDER:	T h e r u l e 1 1 1 ~ 1 dated 23 May 1 9 7 9
be discharged.

I N TI-IE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION	V. NO. 18 of 1979
VICTORIA DISTRICT REG1ST.W
B E T W E E N :

Claimant

and

NOEL BATTESE Respondent

NORTFIROP J. EX TEMPORII JUDGXXNT 31 May, 1 9 7 9 .

-

I n t h i s m a t t e r t h e c o u r t , on 23 May 1979,

made an o r d e r c a l l i n g upon t h e respondent t o show cause

why c e r t a i n o r d e r s should n o t be made a g a i n s t hlm under

s . 1 4 1 of t h e C o n c l l l a t l o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Act 1904.

The a p p l i c a t i o n i s made by t h e c la imant , F r a n c i s Kevin

W i l l i s , who i s t h e s e c r e t a r y of t h e South A u s t r a l i a n branch

o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n P o s t a l and Telecommunlcations Union, an

o r g a n i z a t i o n under t h e Conciliation and A r b ~ t r a t i o n Act 1904

The respondent is t h e g e n e r a l p r e s i d e n t o f t h a t union.

The o r d e r s sought were t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t

t h e respondent n o t interfere wl th t h e running of t h e

South A u s t r a l i a n branch of t h e unlon and be r e s t r a i n e d from

e n t e r i n g l n t o t h e union premises a t 6 2 S t u r t S t r e e t . These

were sought a s directions f o r t h e compliance w l t h t h e r u l e s .

When t h e m a t t e r came on b e f o r e t h e c o u r t today,

t h e s o l i c i t o r f o r t h e c la imant sought an o r d e r t h a t t h e

r u l e t o show cause be discharged and counse l f o r t h e

respondent sought an o r d e r t h a t t h e c la lmant pay t h e r e sponden t ' s

c o s t o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n .

2.

Under s . 43 of t h e Fede ra l Court o f Australia Act

1976 t h e c o u r t ha s j u r l s d l c t i o n t o award c o s t s i n a l l

proceedings be fo re t h e c o u r t o t h e r t han proceedings i n

r e s p e c t o f which any o t h e r a c t p rov ldes t h a t c o s t s s h a l l

n o t be awarded. Sec t ion 197A of t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n and

A r b i t r a t i o n Act 1904, l n s o f a r a s it i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e

p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t i o n , r eads a s fo l lows:

"A p a r t y t o -

( a ) . . .

(b ) a proceeding, i nc lud ing an appea l ,

b e f o r e t h e Cour t , o r b e f o r e a c o u r t

o f a S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r y , i n a m a t t e r

a r i s i n g under t h i s A c t ;

s h a l l n o t be o rde red t o pay any c o s t s

i n c u r r e d by any o t h e r p a r t y t o t h a t

proceeding excep t where t h e p a r t y a g a l n s t

whom t h e o r d e r 1s made i n s t i t u t e d t h e

proceeding	v e x a t i o u s l y	o r w i thou t	reasonable
cause . "

M r . Gray has urged on t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e s e

proceedings were commenced by t h e c la imant e i t h e r v e x a t i o u s l y

o r w i thou t reasonable cause , whi le M r . Cooch has argued

t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t vexa t ious o r were n o t commenced wl thout

reasonable	cause .
The I n d u s t r i a l Court i n a a e c i s i o n Heidt v .

Chrys le r A u s t r a l i a Limited 26 F.L.R. p.257 and i n p a r t i c u l a r

a t pp.271 t o 276 cons idered t h e q u e s t i o n of c o s t s . I t

i s f a i r t o say t h a t it is on ly i n e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances

t h a t an o r d e r f o r c o s t s should be made. A t p.274 t h e

c o u r t s a i d :

"Sec t ion 197A i s t o be cons idered when

proceedings i n t h e c o u r t have been completed

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

above a r e t o be a p p l l e d a t an e a r l y s t a g e

o f t h e cou r se of t h e proceedings . I n my

op in ion , s i m l l a r p r i n c i p l e s a r e t o b e

a p p l i e d when cons ide r ing t h e m a t t e r s r a i s e d

by s.197A. Great c a r e must be e x e r c i s e d

t o ensu re t h a t i n f i n d i n g t h a t a p a r t y has

i n s t i t u t e d proceedings vexa t ious ly o r

wi thout reasonable cause , t h a t p a r t y i s

n o t improperly depr lved of h i s freedom

from l i a b i l i t y t o pay c o s t s t o an opposing

p a r t y . The tes t i s a s u b s t a n t i a l one. "

I n t h a t c a s e c o s t s were awarded a g a l n s t t h e

unsuccess fu l c la lmant . The High Court made a b r l e f

r e f e r e n c e t o t h e same m a t t e r i n r e s p e c t of c o s t s i n - re

Federa ted Miscel laneous Workers Union 22 A. L. R. 347

where M r . J u s t i c e Gibbs a t pp.349 t o 350 s a i d :

"The respondent , t h e Australian Workers' Unlon,

has a p p l i e d f o r c o s t s on t h e ground t h a t

t h e proceeding was instituted by t h e p rosecu to r

'w l thou t reasonable cause1 w l t h i n t h e meaning

o f s . 1 9 7 A o f t h e A c t . I n my opin ion a p a r t y

cannot be s a i d t o have commenced a proceeding

'w i thou t reasonable c a u s e ' , w i t h l n t h e meaning

of t h a t s e c t i o n , s imply because h i s argument

proves unsuccess fu l . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e

argument p re sen ted on beha l f of t h e p rosecu to r was n o t unworthy of consideration and it found.

some suppor t i n t h e two d e c l s l o n s o f t h l s

c o u r t t o which I have r e f e r r e d . The f a c t t h a t

t h o s e d e c i s i o n s havc been d l s t l n g u i s h e d , and

t h a t t h e argument has f a i l e d , i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n

f o r o r d e r l n g c o s t s i n t h e f a c e o f t h e p r o h l b l t l o n

conta ined i n s.197A."

I n my op in lon , where, on t h e r e t u r n of a r u l e

t o show cause , a c la lmant s eeks t o have t h e o r d e r d i scharged

difficulties a r i s e i n determining whether t h o s e proceedings

w e r e commenced vexatiously o r w i thou t reasonable cause .

This i s s o p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e r u l e t o show cause was

g r a n t e d by a judge a f t e r referring t o t h e m a t e r i a l f i l e d

and h e a r i n g t h e person making t h e application.

Before a d e c i s l o n could f l n a l l y be made t h e

c o u r t would need t o look Fnto t h e whole l s s u e of t h e

proceedings and i n e f f e c t have a h e a r i n g f o r t h e purposes of

dec id lng whether t h e proceedings were commenced vexa t ious ly

01 wi thout reasonable cause . I n t h e p r e s e n t ca se I am n o t

s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e c la imant commenced t h e proceedings

v e x a t i o u s l y o r wi thout reasonable cause and, accordingly,

I r e j e c t t h e submission made t h a t t h e respondents1 c o s t s be pa id .

Accordingly, the o r d e r of t h e c o u r t i s t h a t t h e

r u l e n i s i da t ed 2 3 May 1979 be d ~ s c h a r g e d .