Halaka v Liberal Party of Australia New South Wales Division [2016] NSWSC 1620

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Halaka v Liberal Party of Australia New South Wales Division [2016] NSWSC 1620 Hearing dates: 9 November 2016 Decision date: 17 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Stevenson J Decision: Proceedings dismissed Catchwords: UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS - requirement for procedural fairness in constitution of defendant - such requirement able to be waived in specified circumstances - where State Executive of defendant formed opinion that those circumstances existed - whether State Executive acted bona fide in forming that opinion - whether plaintiff sustained onus of showing State Executive did not act bona fide - in any event whether as a matter of discretion any relief should be granted Legislation Cited: Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (NSW) Cases Cited: Australian Workers' Union v Bowen (No 2) (1948) 77 CLR 601 Paton v Sydney Press Club (1940) 57 WN (NSW) 57 Wilcox v Kogarah Golf Club Ltd (1997) 14 ACLC 421 Texts Cited: P Young, C Croft and M L Smith, On Equity, (2009, Lawbook Company) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ihab Adel Halaka (Plaintiff) Liberal Party of Australia New South Wales Division (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Loxton (Plaintiff) S Duggan (Defendant)

Solicitors: Robert Balzola & Associates (Plaintiff) Harpur Phillips (Defendant) File Number(s): SC 2014/44340

Judgment 1. The plaintiff, Mr Halaka, is a member of the defendant, the Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales Division ("the Party"). 2. The Party is an unincorporated association and a political party registered under Pt 4A of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (NSW). 3. The Party is governed by its Constitution. The controlling body of the party is its State Council. The State Executive of the Party has the day to day management of the Party, subject to the Constitution. 4. Mr Halaka was at all material times the president of the Wentworthville Young Liberals Branch of the defendant ("the Branch"). 5. On 7 February 2014 the State Executive, by a series of motions, suspended the Branch until 28 March 2014. 6. A number of Party conferences were due to be held on 28 March 2014. Suspension of the Branch, if effective, would also have suspended Mr Halaka's rights to attend and vote at those conferences. 7. On 12 February 2014, Mr Halaka commenced these proceedings seeking a declaration that the State Executive's decision of 7 February 2014 was void and an injunction restraining the Party from preventing Mr Halaka and other office bearers from voting at those conferences. 8. On or about 19 February 2014, the Court was informed that Mr Halaka no longer sought interlocutory relief. It was common ground before me that the Branch's suspension was lifted at around this time and that, as things turned out, Mr Halaka was not impended from voting at such conferences as he was entitled. 9. Nonetheless Mr Halaka, by an amended statement of claim filed on 1 November 2015 seeks declaratory relief to the effect that the decisions of the State Executive of 7 February 2014 were not reached bona fide and were void. 10. In my opinion, Mr Halaka has not made out his case. The proceedings should be dismissed.