Cameron v Hogan [1934] HCA 24

erty N Dixon jeventh-Day Australian Bien Gag * Pine Al Re aC

308 eit Dist

Law Apo! | Beting vat ie Yo ede ae 87SASR

ic Society A Curch Ae SHRI - ref 'Pon iccoursants

Pine 18ALD SASRI21 Ew Petony Dist Not Foll h Val Sons Clarke vALP Liddiey Bist Appl . RSL fy att ASR IO SEEN, Nos G00) Davithon h ivisic (1995 146 34 ACSR (2002) 55 AEBS? 7 (Be ree a Awl

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

CAMERON AND OTHERS x 2 i . APPELLANTS ; DEFENDANTS, AND HOGAN b Bailie é A 5 . REsponpEnt. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H.C. or A. Voluntary Association—Political organization—Membership—Rights—Contractual

1934. "Pe MEcBouRNE, May 24, 25, 28, 29. Sypney, Aug. 3.

Dixon, Evate and McTiernan JJ.

relation—Not existing between members—Expulsion—Candidature for political election—Pre- selection,

The executive of a voluntary association, by passing an unauthorized resolu- tion for the exclusion of a member of the association, or by failing to observe the rules governing the association's affairs, commits no breach of contract actionable either at common law or in equity, unless the member complaining has under the rules some civil right of a proprietary nature.

'The plaintiff, who was a member of a political party, brought an action against the executive officers of the Party, a voluntary association. 'The defendants had refused to approve, endorse, or submit to ballot the plaintiff's nomination as a person seeking selection by the Party as its candidate at a State Parliamentary election then pending, and had by resolution excluded him from the Party. 'The plaintiff alleged that both these actions were breaches of the rules of the associa- tion. The assets of the association were employed solely for the purpose of furthering its political aims, and by reason of the defendants' action, although the plaintiff was returned to Parliament, he was not elected as leader of the State Parliamentary Labor Purty and, therefore, did not receive the emoluments of that office. 'he plaintill sought a declaration that he was still a member of the association, that his exclusion therefrom was wrongful, and that the non-endorsement of his candidature was wrongful, an injunction to restrain his exclusion from the association, and damages.