Cameron v Hogan [1934] HCA 24

Cameron v Hogan [1934] HCA 24 - HCA 1934 case summary — Zoe

[14]

1930 the central executive requested a personal assurance from the plaintiff in the terms of such decisions ; that the decisions of the special conference were ultra vires and of no effect, and were contrary to rules 19 and 20 of the constitution of the association ; that the request for the plaintiff's personal assurance amounted to a demand for a further or amended pledge, and was ultra vires ; that the plaintiff, consequently, declined to comply with the request ; that on 8th December 1930 the central executive decided that notification be sent to the plaintiff that his endorsement as a labor candidate would be "held up" in the event of his not complying with such request; that such decision was void and of no effect, and the plaintiff did not comply with such request ; at the annual conference of the association held in April 1931 the decision was promulgated "that the action of the said executive in demanding personal assurances from the members of the said State and Federal Parlia- mentary Labor Parties be endorsed, and that the incoming executive be asked to enforce same"; that this decision was void and of no effect ; purporting to act under this decision the executive by letter dated 15th June 1931 summoned the plaintiff to attend before it on 19th June 1931 to show cause why his endorsement as a labor member should not be cancelled; on 18th June 1931 the plaintiff informed the executive that by reason of ill-health he was unable to attend before it on the date named ; by letter dated 22nd June 1931 the executive informed the plaintiff that if the assurance required was not given before 3rd July 1931 his endorsement as a labor candidate would be withdrawn; that on 3rd July 1931 at a meeting of the central executive it was ruled that the interpretation of the decision of April 1931 was that, when the time for endorse- ment was due, the endorsement of the plaintiff would be withdrawn, and the matter was referred to a special conference to be held on 25th July 1931; in May and June 1931 at a conference of the Premiers of all the States and the Commonwealth Government certain financial proposals known as the Premiers' Plan were agreed upon ; at a special federal conference of the Australian Labor Party (of which the association is a branch) the decision of which is the supreme authority of the Australian Labor Party and binding on all members thereof, the resolutions that " this conference is opposed

[16]

association openly supporting or assisting in the furtherance of the Premiers' Plan shall cease to be a member of the Australian Labor Party" were expressly negatived; on 30th January 1932 at the annual conference of the association held in Melbourne, it was decided that "all members be warned that any further support of the Premiers' Plan will result in exclusion from the Party"; that as this resolution was supported by many delegates whose unions were unfinancial, and as the conference was not convened in accord- ance with the rules of the constitution, the proceedings of the conference were unconstitutional and of no effect, and were moreover void as being contrary to the decision of the federal conference of 29th August 1931, and of the interpretation of the federal executive of 19th June 1931, and as inconsistent with the rules of the constitu- tion; purporting to act on the decisions of April 1931, 3rd July 1931 and 30th January 1932 the central executive on 8th April 1932 decided that members of the Parliamentary Labor Party who supported the re-enactment of the Premiers' Plan would be excluded from the Labor Party; this decision was ultra vires and void, and contrary to a rule of the constitution ; on 23rd April 1932, relying on the above decisions and on a paragraph of the constitution of the association, and without giving the plaintiff any opportunity of being heard or of defending himself, the central executive decided not to endorse the plaintiff as a labor candidate at the parliamentary elections to be held on 14th May 1932; that this decision was not in accordance with the constitution of the association, and was contrary to law and natural justice ; the plaintiff was in fact elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly on 14th May 1932, but by reason of his non-endorsement as a labor candidate he was not eligible for re-appointment to the leadership of the State Parliamen- tary Labor Party, and but for such non-endorsement the plaintiff would have been re-appointed to the leadership of such Party, and entitled to the emoluments attached to that position. The plaintiff also pleaded that he had been wrongly excluded from the association for alleged breaches of decisions of the above-mentioned conferences as interpreted by the executive, and had thereby been deprived of his rights in the property of the association and the advantages

[73]

Rich J, Court of equity. (Compare Chapman v. Michaelson (1); Langman Evatt x v. Handover (2) ; Ruislip-Northwood U.D.C. v. Lee (3).) omen 7: Judicial statements of authority are to be found to the effect that, except to enforce or establish some right of a proprietary nature, a member who complains that he has been unjustifiably excluded from a voluntary association, or that some breach of its tules has been committed, cannot maintain any action directly founded upon that complaint. For example, in Forbes v. Eden (4) Lord Cranworth said: "Save for the due disposal and adminis- tration of property, there is no authority in the Courts either of England or Scotland to take cognizance of the rules of a voluntary society entered into merely for the regulation of its own affairs." (Compare per Jessel M.R., Rigby v. Connol (5); per Barry J., O'Keefe v. Cardinal Cullen (6).) Gavan Duffy J. considered that such statements should be understood as relating only to the juris- diction of Courts of equity. There are, however, reasons which justify the statement that, at common law as well as in equity, no actionable breach of contract was committed by an unauthorized resolution expelling a member of a voluntary association, or by the failure on the part of its officers to observe the rules regulating its affairs, unless the members enjoyed under them some civil right of a proprietary nature. As a generalization it expresses the result produced by the application of a number of independent legal principles: it is not in itself the enunciation or explanation of a rule or rules of the common law. One reason which must contribute in a great degree to produce the result is the general character of the voluntary associations which are likely to be formed without property and without giving to their members any civil right of a proprietary nature. They are for the most part bodies of persons who have combined to further some common end or interest, which 20) (1908) 2 Ch, 612; (1909) 1 Ch. (3) (1931) 145 LP. 208.

[87]

ruling authority within the State." An annual conference must elect from the delegates six officers and eighteen members to be the central executive, which is "the managing and administrative authority." It is to "administer the constitution according to the letter, as far as it goes, and where the letter fails, according to its spirit." An appeal lies to the annual conference from a decision of the central executive upon a charge against a member. The central executive is required to form at least five different sub-committees, one of which examines the accounts, and watches and advises upon the financial affairs of the Party, and another of which supervises selection ballots and controls the conduct of election campaigns. In every State constituency there is a State electorate council com- posed of delegates appointed by Branches, which, with the addition of delegates from affiliated Unions, becomes a campaign committee for the purpose of conducting election campaigns and ballots for the selection of candidates. The " Australian Labor Party State of Victoria" is an organization which itself forms part of a federal organization. There is a federal conference to which each State organization sends six delegates. Resolutions passed by it in accord- ance with the Party federal constitution are binding upon State organizations. There is also a federal executive composed of two delegates from each State. Appeals lie to it from decisions of State conferences if they affect the federal labor platform or policy, or the attitude thereto of a member, or if the State conference or executive gives leave to appeal. From the decisions of the federal executive an appeal lies to the federal conference. The revenue required to defray the expenses of all these bodies is raised through the Branches and the affiliated Unions. Upon affiliation a Union and a Branch must pay to the central executive a fee which goes from two shillings and six pence, if its members are not more than twenty-five, to forty shillings if they exceed a thousand. Every affiliated Union must then pay to the central executive for every male member ten pence a year in quarterly payments. Every Branch member, if an adult male, must pay two shillings a year to the Branch. But the Branch must pay four pence a year for every member to the central executive. The State electorate councils must also be paid twenty-five per cent of the membership contribu-

[91]

executive no absolute discretion to accept or reject the nomination, but only a power to reject after proceeding under the rule relating to withdrawal. It was for this reason that he held that, in failing to submit the nomination to a ballot of the members in the State electorate, the central committee did what amounted to, or gave rise to, a breach of contract for which the respondent was entitled to damages. But the question which arises first is whether the rules relating to the selection of party candidates were intended to operate at all as a contract. If the action be treated as a representa- tive proceeding against all the members of the Party other than the respondent, it would be necessary for him to establish that the rules should be understood as a warranty by every member to every other who should be nominated for selection that his name would be admitted to ballot, unless it was withdrawn after proper opportunity for defence. If the action be treated as a proceeding against the members of the central executive who failed to submit the respon- dent's nomination for ballot, to establish a breach of contract it would be necessary for the respondent to show that the appellants, either by accepting office, or by adhering to the rules as members of the Party, engaged with him contractually as a member to perform their duties in relation to nomination in complete accordance with the rules. Neither of these interpretations of the rules appears to be warranted. Hitherto rules made by a political or like organization for the regulation of its affairs and the conduct of its activities have never been understood as imposing contractual duties upon its officers or its members. Such matters are naturally regarded as of domestic concern, The rules are intended to be enforced by the authorities appointed under them. In adopting them, the members ought not to be presumed to contemplate the creation of enforceable legal rights and duties so that every departure exposes the officer or member concerned to a civil sanction. The matter has not been the subject of much, if any, discussion in English cases. For American authority it is enough to refer to McKane v. Adams (1). In adopting a resolution excluding the respondent from the Party, the central executive assumed a power which is not explicitly given to that body by the rules. Gavan Duffy J. rejected the

[108]

the Commonwealth Year Book 1933, pp. 884-897. The central executive declared its uncompromising opposition to the Premiers' Plan, and instructed all State Labor members to vote against such proposals. The Hogan Government was, however, committed by agreement at the conference to the plan, and was bound to implement it, by reason both of its agreement and of the necessities of the financial position. The central executive, however, persevered with its demand upon Hogan for the assurance already mentioned. In June of 1931, Hogan was informed that if the assurance were not given his endorsement would be withdrawn, but he remained adamant in his refusal. In August of 1931 a special federal confer- ence was held. It was resolved that the reduction of wages, pensions and social services ran counter to Labor's platform, and could not be accepted as any part of Labor's policy, and that Federal and State Labor Parties be instructed that there should be no further reduction in wages, pensions and social services, and that proposals in this respect should be resisted. In October of 1931, the central executive asserted that Hogan was still infringing his pledge as a member of the Australian Labor Party, and advised him that his conduct rendered him liable under rule 87 (J) to be declared ineligible as a member of the Australian Labor Party, and required that he accept the resolution of the special federal conference. But nothing seems to have happened until April of 1932, when nominations were called from members of the Australian Labor Party eligible to contest selection ballots for the next State election. Hogan's nomination was lodged for his old seat, Warrenheip and Grenville. The central executive never endorsed his nomination, and withdrew it from the selection ballot. In May of 1932, the Hogan Government resigned. Hogan attributed its fall to the foolishness of the central executive, and want of loyalty on the part of the Minister whom he left in charge during his absence from the State. On 26th May 1932 the central executive sent a cable to Hogan, who was abroad at the time, calling upon him to " show cause against exclusion from party for breach last annual conference decisions regarding continued support portion Premiers' Plan re wages, pensions, social services." Hogan xeplied by cable asserting that the proposed action was contrary to

[114]

or in equity, Hogan must establish some breach of contract with him, or some interference with his proprietary rights or interests, As a general rule, the Courts do not interfere in the contentions or quarrels of political parties, or, indeed, in the internal affairs of any voluntary association, society or club. '* Agreements to associate for purposes of recreation, or an agreement to associate for scientific or philanthropic or social or religious purposes, are not agreements which Courts of law can enforce. They are entirely personal. Therefore, in order to establish a civil wrong from the refusal to carry out such an agreement, if it can be inferred that any such agreement was made, it is necessary to see that the pursuer has suffered some practical injury, either in his reputation or in his property " (Murdison v. Scottish Football Union (1) ). Contrac- tual rights, therefore, appear to me out of the question. The rules of a voluntary association organized for political purposes are not agreements enforceable at law, or in other words, contracts. Members of such associations who have grievances must resort to the remedies and the redress afforded them by the rules of their associations, and not to the Courts of law. Further, the central executive acted or purported to act as a tribunal constituted and endowed under the rules with jurisdiction to exclude or expel members of the party ; suppose that it wrongly assumed such jurisdiction and that its act is void, how can any contract be inferred between Hogan and the members of the central executive, whom he sues, binding them not to exert jurisdiction, or to expel him except in accordance with the rules? They are only acting or purporting to act as a tribunal established and organized under the rules, and for the purpose of enforcing them. Further still, the rules give an appeal from the central executive to the annual conference, and, finally, to the federal conference, and evenif the rules were binding as a contract between Hogan and the members of the Australian Labor Party, there could, in my opinion, be no breach of that contract until Hogan had resorted to the remedies or redress provided by the rules for any unwarranted action on the part of the central executive. But Hogan also claims relief because his exclusion or expulsion from the Australian Labor Party deprives him of some proprietary or pecuniary right or interest.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (122 paragraphs)

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (12)