Federal Court of Australia
ANT
CATCHWORDS
Industrial law - registered organizations - validity of rules -
proper venue for trial - whether rule disenfranchising
unfinancial branch on federal council contravenes Act - discovery
of documents.
Federal Court Rules order 30 rule 6, order 1 rule 4, order 10
rule 1(2)(f)
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 5. 140
Geneff_ v. Petersen (1980) 49 F.L.R. 64
Genetf v. Petersen (unreported 27th July 1984) Toohey Jd.
HARRY DAVID KRANTZ AND OTHERS v. THE FEDERATED CLERKS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA
GRAY J.
ZND NOVEMBER 1984 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY '. S.A. No. 13 of 1984
INDUSTRIAL DIVESTON rs. VY rl
BETWEEN : HARRY DAVID KRANTZ, FREDERICK EDWARD PRIEST and WILLIAM ALEX SMITH Applicants AND
FEDERATED CLERKS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE: GRAY J.
DATE: 2ND NOVEMBER 1984
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter, there are before the Court two notices of motion. One of these notices of motion is dated 2nd November 1984 and was filed on. this day, on behalf of the Applicants. It seeks an interim order restraining 'the: Respondent 'from declaring unfinancial the South Australian branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, and::from depriving the national councillors from that branch of the right to attend as councillors and to
participate in and vote on any question in the meeting of
-2- Wednesday, 7th December 1984, or participate in any letter or telegram vote provided for by rule 17(3) of the rules. Mr. Heywood-Smith,.on behalf of the Applicants, has not pressed his application for the relief sought in that notice of motion.
Accordingly, I do not deal further with it.
The other notice of motion is filed on behalf of the Respondent. It seeks a number of things. The first order sought is that the proceeding be transferred to Melbourne and be and thereafter remain in the Victoria District Registry of the Court. Under the provisions of order 30 rule 6 of the Federal Court Rules, the trial of a proceeding is required to be at the proper place unless the Court makes an order directing that the trial be fixed at a place other than the proper place. "Proper place" is defined by order 1 rule 4 as being the place at which the proceeding was commenced unless there has been a_ transfer. A transfer of the proper place is possible under order 10 rule 1(2)(£). Plainly, the structure of the Federal Court Rules is such as to require that, in the normal case, a matter be tried where it was commenced. In other words, inmost cases an applicant is given the choice of venue. In this case, the matter was commenced by Rule to Show Cause, which was obtained in Adelaide, and the proper place is, accordingly, Adelaide. The grounds on which..the Respondent seeks. .to change., that ~ proper place, or to have the trial of the matter conducted in Melbourne,
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate