Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (No. 3) - [2025] QIRC 170

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (No. 3)[2025] QIRC 170

Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (No. 3)[2025] QIRC 170

INDUSTRIAL REGISTRAR

CITATION:

Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors (No. 3) [2025] QIRC 170

PARTIES:

Johanson, Madonna

(Applicant)

v

Queensland Teachers Union of Employees

(First Respondent)

and

Ruttiman, Kate

(Second Respondent)

and

Richardson, Cresta

(Third Respondent)

and

Olsson, Leah

(Fourth Respondent)

and

Cleary, Josh

(Fifth Respondent)

CASE NO:

RIO/2024/137

PROCEEDING:

Application for an election inquiry

DELIVERED ON:

3 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

MEMBER:

Industrial Registrar Shelley

ORDERS:

Pursuant to s 690 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the application filed on 9 May 2024 will not be referred to the Commission to conduct an election inquiry.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – REGISTERED INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS – Application for an election inquiry – Industrial Registry may refer the application to the Commission – Industrial Registrar needs to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to inquire – whether there has been an irregularity – what are reasonable grounds – definition of "irregularity" – whether application is one for referral to the Commission for an election inquiry – not referred

LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 687, s 688, s 689, s 690

Industrial Organisations Act 1997 (Qld)

Industrial Relations Act 1990

Queensland Teachers Union of Employees Constitution and Rules

CASES:

Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2023] QIRC 302

Becker, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Australian Education Union, Queensland Branch [2004] FCA 1534

BFW20 by his Litigation Representative BFW20A v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 562

Carovska, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, NSW Branch [2023] FCA 1129

Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 248 CLR 378

Clancy, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation [2017] FCA 460

Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 16

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55;(2012) 250 CLR 503

George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104

In the matter of an application by William Robert Jacomb for an Inquiry relating to an election for office in the Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union [2000] 180 ALR 134

Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2024] QIRC 157

Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2024] QIRC 272

Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 051

Nimmo, in the matter of an application for an inquiry relating to an election for an office in the Australian Education Union (NT Branch) [2011] FCA 38

Northern Territory v Collins [2008] HCA 49; (2008) 235 CLR 619

O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd [1990] HCA 16; (1990) 169 CLR 356

Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355

R v A2 [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 269 CLR 507

R v Gray; Ex parte Marsh [1985] HCA 67; (1985) 157 CLR 351

Re An Application By Dannie Richard Davidson of An Inquiry Into An Election of An Office In the Musicians' Union of Australia, Newcastle Branch [1990] FCA 129; (1990) 22 FCR 449

Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings [1989] HCA 42; (1989) 167 CLR 522

Re Jarman, Ex parte Cook (No 2) [1996] HCA 7; (1996) 136 ALR 233

Re Post; Re Election for Offices in Transport Workers Union of Australia, Western Australian Branch [1992] FCA 15; (1992) 40 IR 162

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362

White, in the matter of an election for an office in Transport Workers' Union of Australia, Queensland Branch [2019] FCA 2131

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    On 9 May 2024, Ms Madonna Johanson (Applicant) filed in the Industrial Registry an application for an election inquiry pursuant to s 687 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (the Act) with regards to an election held by the Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (First Respondent/QTU).
  1. [2]
    On 24 June 2024 I released a decision to not refer the election inquiry application to the Commission[1].
  1. [3]
    On 15 July 2024 the Applicant filed in the Industrial Registry an appeal to the Full Bench (C/2024/30), and subsequently filed an amended appeal to the Full Bench on 29 July 2024, appealing the consideration of submissions by "union lawyers without the registrar giving leave and/or without consent of all parties"; the decision not to refer the election inquiry application; and the consideration of a legal submission by "union lawyers when the Further Directions Order permitted the submission of a statement in response".
  1. [4]
    On 31 October 2024, the Full Bench handed down their decision[2] determining that the failure to grant leave (for legal representation) justifies the granting of the appeal and that it was not necessary therefore to consider the other grounds of appeal.  The Full Bench further ordered that the decision of 24 June 2024 be set aside, and the matter remitted back to me to be determined according to law. 
  1. [5]
    A Telephone Directions Hearing was held on 5 December 2024 regarding legal representation, with a Further Directions Order being issued on the same day.
  1. [6]
    On 20 December 2024 the First Respondent filed in the Industrial Registry an application in existing proceedings for legal representation.
  1. [7]
    On 13 January 2025 the Applicant filed in the Industrial Registry written submissions in response regarding legal representation.
  1. [8]
    Correspondence was received from Ms Cresta Richardson (Third Respondent) and Mr Josh Cleary (Fifth Respondent) on 6 January 2025, and Ms Kate Ruttiman (Second Respondent) and Ms Leah Ollson (Fourth Respondent) on 10 January 2025, advising that they did not wish to be heard in this matter (regarding legal representation) and "will abide by the decision of the Commission". 
  1. [9]
    On 14 February 2025 I released a decision[3] regarding legal representation ultimately granting leave for the First Respondent to be legally represented in the substantive matter.
  1. [10]
    On 25 February 2025, following a Telephone Mention to determine the steps to be taken in the substantive matter, a Further Directions Order was issued.
  1. [11]
    On 25 March 2025 the Applicant filed in the Industrial Registry an interlocutory application seeking to admit other relevant information, with subsequent Further Directions Orders issued, regarding the interlocutory application, following a Telephone Mention held on 1 April 2025.
  1. [12]
    On 15 April 2025 a Further Telephone Mention was held to clarify with the parties the submissions to be relied upon by the Applicant in the substantive matter.  The documents agreed upon by the parties included:
  1. the application and affidavits originally filed by the Applicant on 9 May 2024;
  1. the submissions, including tables filed by the Applicant on 12 March 2025; and
  1. the affidavit filed by the Applicant on 28 March 2025.
  1. [13]
    On 2 May 2025 the First Respondent filed in the Industrial Registry submissions in reply to the Applicants submissions, including affidavit material.
  1. [14]
    No submissions were filed by the Second to Fifth Respondents.
  1. [15]
    On 19 May 2025 the Applicant filed in the Industrial Registry submissions in reply to the First Respondents submissions in response.

Background

The Election

  1. [16]
    The First Respondent filed the prescribed information for an election on 24 May 2023 and I issued a decision on 25 May 2023 instructing the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ) to conduct an election for the First Respondent for the following positions:

Office No. of Positions

President 1

Vice-President (Full-time) 1

Vice-President (Honorary)  1

  1. [17]
    The ECQ confirmed, in correspondence on 4 December 2023, that as a result of my decision in RIO/2023/88, they would conduct an election for positions of office within the First Respondent with nominations closing on 31 August 2023 and they were required to conduct three ballots of which all three were completed. The ECQ issued a Certificate of Election reporting on the conduct of the election which contained the formal declaration of the results.  A copy of that certificate was enclosed with the correspondence and was also forwarded to the General Secretary of the First Respondent.
  1. [18]
    The certificate outlined the following:
  1. That on 21 July 2023 a Notice of Election and Nomination Form detailing the election arrangements was distributed to members in the First Respondent's journal.  The timetable for the election was advertised as follows:
  • Nominations open on 21 July 2023;
  • Nominations close a midday on 31 August 2023;
  • Postal ballot, if required, to open 6 October 2023;
  • Postal ballot, if required, to close at midday 16 November 2023.
  1. The ECQ accepted the nomination of all candidates as First Respondent's membership records revealed that they were eligible for election to the position of office contested. 
  1. The ECQ conducted a postal ballot to declare the positions of President, Vice-President (Full-time) and Vice-President (Honorary), with the ballots being counted under the Optional Preferential voting system.
  1. The following were results for Vice-President (Honorary) in ballot paper order -

Candidates

Votes @ Count 1

Votes gained

Total

Status

CLEARY, Joshua

3,217

227

3,444

Elected

BARRIGOS, Bec

2,343

403

2,746

 

JOHANSON, Madonna

1,115

 

 

Excluded

Formal votes

6,675

630

6,190

 

Exhausted votes

 

485

485

 

Informal votes

67

 

67

 

Total votes

6,742

1,115

6,742

 

  1. At the conclusion of Count 1, the Applicant had the lowest number of votes so, where applicable, her votes were distributed to the other candidates.
  1. [19]
    Included in the Certificate of Election was a declaration of Ms Suzanne Ball (Returning Officer for the ECQ) declaring that the First Respondent's election was conducted in accordance with the Queensland Teachers Union of Employees Rules ("Rules") and that the following nominees were elected:
  • Cresta Richardson – President;
  • Leah Olsson – Vice-President (Full-time); and
  • Joshua Cleary – Vice-President (Honorary).

The Applicants written submissions

  1. [20]
    The Applicant was a financial member of the First Respondent at the time of making the application and filed the application, accompanied by an affidavit, pursuant to ss 687 and 689 of the Act within the six-month period after the election had ended as required under s 689(a)(ii)(A) of the Act.
  2. [21]
    The Applicant submitted the following 21 irregularities as claimed to have occurred within the election.
  1. The requirement for candidate Ms Johanson, to complete a Statutory declaration rather than the written commitment required in Policy A 16.2, in order to access the Membership List (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(v); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.4(a)(iv); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 6.9(d)(ii).
  1. The repeated delay of the provision of Policy 16.2 Membership Lists information names, postal addresses and "any other relevant information", including union reps and workplaces, to candidate Ms Johanson (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(v); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.4(a)(iv); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); Code of Ethics Part A, Code of Ethics Part B 3; 4).
  1. The moving and carrying of the amendment to Policy A 16.2 at State Council on 26 August 2023 to add: "The information provided by the QTU to those seeking election to a QTU position is only to be used for the purposes of written or telecommunications to members only" to prevent Fightback candidates' door knocking when incumbents were not door knocking (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.1(b); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.4(f); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 8.2(b); Standing Order 22, Code of Ethics Part A, Code of Ethics Part B 3; 4; 5).
  1. The deferral of Ms Johanson's motion at November State Council, to strike out the August Council Policy A 16.2 amendment, until March 2024 council, despite the August amendment continuing to disproportionately limit Ms Johanson's ability to campaign, as compared to the incumbents who were visiting schools and workplaces as part of the "Yes" and "For Every Child" campaigns (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.1(b); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.4(f); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 8.2(b); Code of Ethics Part B 3; 4).
  1. The publishing of commentary against the Fightback team door knocking in an "Editorial: by Kate Ruttiman, General Secretary" under the heading "QTU Policy on doorknocking" in the November QTU journal on 2 November 2023 (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.4(a)(vi); 4.4(f); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The increased QTU coverage on social media of the YPT presidential candidates, particularly the President and Vice-President participating in "Yes" and "For Every Child" campaigns, during an election campaign, (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.4(a)(vi); 4.6(f); 4.6(g); 5.1(b); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The creation, approval and running of a QTU affiliated Facebook group called "QTU Fightback - rank and file members in solidarity" from 31 July 2023 until 9 August 2023, to mislead members searching for the Facebook page "QTU Fightback - rank and file members for change", (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.4(a)(vi); 4.6(f); 4.6(g); 5.1(b); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The distribution of YPT election campaign materials at the TAFE Council held inside the QTU building on Saturday 12 August 2023, (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.4(a)(iv); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The Acting employee/member, lobbying Facebook group "QLD Teachers" Admin, on 1 and 3 August 2023, to not allow election posts by candidates to a large audience with no cost, where Fightback members often post and the incumbents do not, (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.6(f); 4.6(g); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The alleged removal of Fightback election material from a school by a QTU organiser before or on 14 September [2023], (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 3.3(b); 3.3(c); 4.2(iii); 4.4(f); 4.6(g); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); Code of Ethics Part A, Code of Ethics Part B 3; 4; 5).
  1. YPT's production and publishing of a video on Facebook and "yourqtuteam.org" on or about September 11 [2023], in which the incumbent President stated that other candidates were extremists (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(ii); 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(vi); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); Code of Ethics Part A; Code of Ethics B 3; 4; 5).
  1. YPT procuring and publishing a sponsored link that directed a Google search from "QTU Fightback" to "yourqtuteam.org" on or about 17 September 2023, to mislead members searching for Fightback (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The publishing of negative statements in the QTU Presidential election special on 5 October 2023, in the article "Josh Cleary for Honorary Vice‑President" about the election inquiry application (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(vi); 4.2(iii); 4.4(a)(vi); 4.4(f); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The publishing of negative statements about the election inquiry application, in the YPT election article in the QTU November journal (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(vi); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.4(a)(vi); 4.4(f); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The publishing of statements in the QTU Presidential election special, in the General Secretary's message, under the heading "QIRC application seeking access to member email addresses", rather than report to November State Council as per Rule 4.4(f) (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.4(a)(vi); 4.4(f); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The publishing of statements in the "Editorial: by Kate Ruttiman, General Secretary" in QTU November journal, under the heading "Election challenge - dismissed", rather than report to November State Council as per Rule 4.4(f) (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.4(a)(vi); 4.4(f); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i)).
  1. The production, publishing and distribution of YPT campaign materials to union reps at workplaces, with "Ballot Checklist" instructions 5 "Schedule a ballot meeting between the 16th and 17th of October", encouraging reps to communicate with members and encourage them to bring along their ballot papers (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 6.2(a); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 6.6(b)(iii); 6.6(b)(vi); 6.6(c)(vii)).
  1. The production, publishing and distribution of YPT campaign materials to union reps at workplaces, with "Ballot Checklist" instructions 6 "Hold the ballot meeting", and 7 "Post the ballots back", letting union reps know that they can share who they are voting for and why, and encouraging union representatives to collect and post the ballot papers of members or for members to give a ballot record to someone else (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 6.2(a); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 6.6(b); 6.6(b)(iii); 6.6(b)(vi); 6.6(c)(vii)).
  1. The collection and posting of ballot envelopes of at least two other members, by a member of Executive/Acting employee, on or about 11 October 2023 (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.6(f); 6.2(a); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 6.6(b); 6.6(b)(iii); 6.6(b)(vi); 6.6(c)(vii)).
  1. The collection and posting of six ballot envelopes from members at Raceview State School, on or about 17 October 2023, by a member of State Council, (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 6.2(a); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 6.6(b); 6.6(b)(iii); 6.6(b)(vi); 6.6(c)(vii)).
  1. The secret faction "The Group" play a role in the election that could constitute an irregularity (Rules: 1.2(d); 1.2(e); 3.1(a); 3.1(b); 3.3(a)(i), 3.3(a)(iii); 3.3(a)(ix); 4.2(iii); 4.3(b); 4.4(a)(xv); 4.4(f); 6.2(a); 6.6(a); 6.6(a)(i); 6.6(b); 6.6(b)(iii); 6.6(b)(vi); 6.6(c)(vii); Code of Ethics Part A; Code of Ethics B 3; 4; 5); and raises other questions about conduct during the election.
  1. [22]
    In addition to the above outlined alleged irregularities, the Applicant further submitted, in submissions filed on 12 March 2025:
  1. There were four substantive legal issues:
    • the Industrial Registrar's failure to consider the inclusive definition of "irregularity" in a Queensland context;
    • the Industrial Registrar exercised discretion contrary to the Act;
    • the Industrial Registrar's assessment of "may have affected" the election result; and
    • the Industrial Registrar did not consider "other circumstances".
  1. That election inquiry precedents had been previously dealt with swiftly by the Industrial Registrar.
  1. That the Queensland definition of "irregularity" includes campaigning/electioneering and has since the Industrial Organisations Act 1997 (Qld) was legislated.
  1. That Queensland Parliamentary supremacy overrides case law including federal case law.
  1. That extrinsic material, such as the Cooke Inquiry[4], should be considered in determining the definition of "irregularity" and the context around which the Act should be construed.
  1. That legislative recommendations in the second report of the Cook Inquiry (and restated in the sixth report) specifically addressed and defeated the unsatisfactory position in the federal case Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings[5] and that was relied upon in the Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors[6] (Amerena) decision.
  1. That ss 14, 14A, 14B, 19, 20 and 35 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), mean that the Cooke Inquiry recommendations are validly recognised under Queensland law.
  1. That breaches of the secret ballot and offences related to disadvantaging candidates, were offences in the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and continue as offences about the conduct of elections in the Act.  Cooke discussed both of these behaviours as election irregularities and provided detailed examples and that they too should be considered as election irregularities.
  1. That the amendments made reliant on the Cooke Inquiry are in operation, despite not being argued or considered in Amerena.
  1. That the First Respondent did not contest the Applicant's allegations or affidavits filed with the Industrial Registry.
  1. That the Industrial Registrar should refer the election inquiry to the Commission.

The First Respondent's Submissions in Response

  1. [23]
    The submissions of the First Respondent, filed on 2 May 2025, may be summarised as follows:
  1. The conducting of an inquiry into an election is a "serious matter" as it "affects confidence in the integrity of the conduct of the organisation"[7].
  1. The First Respondent has a legitimate interest in making these submissions to avoid those adverse consequences and "it is impossible as a matter of law for the Registrar to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to inquire whether there has been an irregularity in the election that may have affected the election result".
  1. The First Respondent's submissions "do not contest the factual allegations in the Applicant's material (other than by reference to and between that material) and are limited to identifying issues of law as to whether any of the allegations made in the Application, on the basis of the Applicant's own material, could amount to "irregularities" under the Act that may have affected the result or otherwise amount to circumstances that could allow the Registrar to reach the required state of satisfaction".
  1. That it is fundamental to the rules of law that the Industrial Registrar, as non-judicial officer, is "bound to give effect to the meaning and proper content of the law of Parliament as so determined" by the Courts, citing Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd[8].
  1. [24]
    The First Respondent further submitted that the law is unequivocal that:
  1. 9.
    The Registrar cannot be satisfied there are reasonable grounds there has been an irregularity that may have affected the election result if the grounds alleged cannot amount to an 'irregularity', the allegations of fact do not themselves provide good grounds, or if the grounds depend upon speculation, and the election result 'as a matter practical reality' could not have been affected by the alleged irregularities.
  1. 10.
    In light of the large margins of the successful candidates (in both raw and percentage terms) there is no reasonable possibility that the Registrar can be satisfied as a matter practical reality that the irregularities alleged may have affected the election results.
  1. 11.
    Even leaving that issue aside, the vast bulk of the irregularities as alleged relate solely to steps taken to affect voting intentions, not involving the machinery provisions and the formal steps involved in an election.  Such conduct, even if it occurred as alleged, cannot as a matter of law amount to irregularities.
  1. 12.
    Even leaving both of those issues aside, the Rules the application relies upon in connection with the alleged irregularities are primarily aspirational, descriptive, dependent or simply irrelevant so any alleged failure to comply with them could never amount to an irregularity.
  1. 13.
    Finally, of the handful of Rules relied upon that do relate to the conduct of the election, they only impose obligations on the Returning Officer and no allegations have been raised in the Application that the Returning Officer failed to comply with their obligations under such Rules.
  1. 14.
    The Applicant is misconceived, it does not identify any irregularities at law and it must be dismissed.

The relevant provisions of the Act

  1. [25]
    Section 687 of the Act provides:

687 Commission may conduct election inquiry

The commission may, on an application referred to it by the registrar under this part, conduct an inquiry (election inquiry) about a claimed irregularity in an election.

  1. [26]
    Section 688 of the Act provides:

688 Who may apply

An application for an election inquiry may be made only by –

  1. a financial member of the organisation in which the election was conducted; or
  2. a person who was a financial member of the organisation within 1 year before the application is made.
  1. [27]
    Section 689 of the Act provides:

689 Requirements for application

The application -

  1. may be filed only during the period that -
  1. starts on the day the information, prescribed by regulation, for the election is filed under section 669(1); and
  2. ends -
  1. 6 months after the election has ended; or
  2. if the registrar, on application, allows the application to be filed before a later stated day - on the later stated day; and
  1. must state -
  1. the election for which the application is made; and
  1. the irregularity that is claimed to have happened; and
  1. the facts relied on to support the application; and
  1. must be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant stating the facts claimed in the application are true to the best of the applicant's knowledge and belief.
  1. [28]
    Section 690 of the Act provides:
  1. 690
    Referral to commission
  1. The registrar may refer the application to the commission only if satisfied -
  1. there are reasonable grounds to inquire whether there has been an irregularity in the election that may have affected, or may affect, the election result; and
  2. the circumstances justify an election inquiry.
  1. In deciding whether to refer the application, the registrar may consider other relevant information of which the registrar has knowledge.
  1. An election inquiry is taken to have been started in the commission when the application is referred.
  1. [29]
    Section 595 of the Act defines "irregularity" as:

irregularity includes –

  1. a contravention of an organisation's rules; and
  1. for an election or ballot, an act or omission by which the following is, or is attempted to be, prevented -
  1. the full and free recording of votes by all persons who may record a vote and by no other persons;
  1. a correct working out or declaration of the results of voting.

That section of the Act also defines "election" as:

election means an election for an office for an organisation or branch of an organisation.

Statutory Interpretation

  1. [30]
    Merrell DP in Amerena[9] also outlined the modern approach to statutory construction citing SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[10] where Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ stated:
  1. 14.
    The starting point for the ascertainment of the meaning of a statutory provision is the text of the statute whilst, at the same time, regard is had to its context and purpose. Context should be regarded at this first stage and not at some later stage and it should be regarded in its widest sense. This is not to deny the importance of the natural and ordinary meaning of a word, namely how it is ordinarily understood in discourse, to the process of construction. Considerations of context and purpose simply recognise that, understood in its statutory, historical or other context, some other meaning of a word may be suggested, and so too, if its ordinary meaning is not consistent with the statutory purpose, that meaning must be rejected.[11]
  1. [31]
    Further in that decision, Merrell DP recognised that (citing R v A2[12]):
  1. [90]
    Consideration of the context includes the statute's surrounding provisions, what may be drawn from other aspects of the statute, the statute as a whole and it extends to the mischief which it may be seen that the statute is intended to remedy. [13]
  1. [32]
    Citing Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority[14]), Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross[15], Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd[16] and Northern Territory v Collins[17] Merrell DP stated:
  1. [91]
    The meaning of a provision in a statute must be determined by reference to the language of the instrument viewed as a whole and the legislative instrument must be construed on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals. The purpose of legislation must be derived from what the legislation says, and not from any assumption about the desired or desirable reach or operation of the relevant provisions.
  1. [92]
    A consideration of the context of statutory text includes the legislative history and extrinsic materials, and understanding context has utility if, and in so far as, it assists in fixing the meaning of the statutory text; but legislative history and extrinsic materials cannot displace the meaning of the statutory text, nor is their examination an end in itself.[18] It is still the fundamental duty of a court to give meaning to the legislative command according to the terms in which it is been expressed and legislative history and references to pre‑existing law should not deflect from the duty of a court of resolving an issue of statutory construction which ultimately is always a text-based activity. [emphasis added]
  1. [33]
    In Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd[19], Allsop J provided the following: 
  1. 3.
    I wish, however, to add some comments about the attitude apparently taken by, and some of the submissions of, the appellant.  From the material that was put to the Full Court, it was open to conclude that the appellant was administering the relevant revenue statute in a way known to be contrary to how this Court had declared the meaning of that statute.  Thus, taxpayers appeared to be in the position of seeing a superior court of record in the exercise of federal jurisdiction declaring the meaning and proper content of a law of the Parliament, but the executive branch of the government, in the form of the Australian Taxation Office, administering the statute in a manner contrary to the meaning and content as declared by the Court; that is, seeing the executive branch of government ignoring the views of the judicial branch of government in the administration of a law of the Parliament by the former.  This should not have occurred.  If the appellant has the view that the courts have misunderstood the meaning of a statute, steps can be taken to vindicate the perceived correct interpretation on appeal or by prompt institution of other proceedings; or the executive can seek to move the legislative branch of government to change the statute.  What should not occur is a course of conduct whereby it appears that the courts and their central function under Chapter III of the Constitution are being ignored by the executive in the carrying out of its function under Chapter II of the Constitution, in particular its function under s 61 of the Constitution of the execution and maintenance of the laws of the Commonwealth.
  1. 4.
    It is the function of the courts exercising federal jurisdiction to declare the meaning of statutes of the Commonwealth Parliament in the resolution or quelling of controversies. To quote Marshall CJ in Marbury v Madison 5 US 87 at 111 (1803):

'It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'

  1. 5.
    This passage has been recognised as central to the administration of justice and to the relationship between the judiciary and executive in this country: (1990) 170 CLR 1 at 35-36; Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assistance Commission (1999) 199 CLR 135 at 152-154 [42]-[44] and Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd (1999) 200 CLR 591 at 635 [116].
  1. Considered decisions of a court declaring the meaning of a statute are not to be ignored by the executive [emphasis added] as inter partes rulings binding only in the earlier lis.  As Mahoney J (as his Honour then was) said in P & C Cantarella v Egg Marketing Board [1973] 2 NSWLR 366 at 383:

'The duty of the executive branch of government is to ascertain the law and obey it.  If there is any difficulty in ascertaining what the law is, as applicable to the particular case, it is open to the executive to approach the court, or afford the citizen the opportunity of approaching the court, to clarify the matter.  Where the matter is before the court it is the duty of the executive to assist the court to arrive at the proper and just result.'

  1. [34]
    In BFW20 by his Litigation Representative BFW20A v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[20], Colvin J stated:
  1. 5.
    The decision in BAL19 had important consequences for the manner in which the Minister was required to deal with the applicant's pending protection visa application.  Speaking generally, once this Court declared that s 501(1) did not apply to a protection visa, the Executive in administering the law was bound to give effect to the meaning and proper content of the law of Parliament as so determined:  Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 16; (2007) 158 FCR 325 at [3] (Allsop J, Stone and Edmonds JJ agreeing). '[A]n essential characteristic of the judicature is that it declares and enforces the law which determines the limits of the power conferred by statute upon administrative decision‑makers':  Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135 at [43] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ); see also Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33; (2017) 263 CLR 1 at [39]‑[49] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

…

  1. 10.
    What the Executive cannot do is to take the unilateral decision to proceed to administer the relevant law on the basis of some view that it has formed, whether based on legal advice or not, that the decision, though seen to be binding, was wrong.  And then, only if and when complaints are raised about the Executive not administering the law according to the determination by the Court, maintain by way of defence that the decision was wrong.  The Executive must approach the matter on the basis that it has no authority, outside raising the matter in the Courts, to itself determine that it is appropriate, in administering a law, to depart from the considered interpretation of that law by the Courts.
  1. [35]
    Wilcox J in Re An Application By Dannie Richard Davidson of An Inquiry Into An Election of An Office In the Musicians' Union of Australia, Newcastle Branch[21],regarding the decision of Hockings, stated
  1. 23.
    Whatever criticisms may validly be made of the reasoning in Hockings, the decision is binding upon me…
  1. [36]
    This matter requires me to construe what is an "irregularity" - whether policy of an organisation and electioneering is an irregularity and to consider extrinsic material.

Considerations

  1. [37]
    Section 690(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, as outlined above, states that the Registrar may refer the application to the commission only if satisfied:
  1. there are reasonable grounds to inquire whether there has been an irregularity in the election that may have affected, or may affect, the election result; and
  2. the circumstances justify an election inquiry. [emphasis added]

Only if satisfied

  1. [38]
    French J in Re Post; Re Election for Offices in Transport Workers Union of Australia, Western Australian Branch[22] outlined which tests apply to determining satisfaction:

The question for the Court mandated by s. 219(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 is whether it is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for the application. It will not be so satisfied if the grounds relied upon could not, even if made out, constitute 'an irregularity in relation to an election for an office in the organisation'…Nor will it be so satisfied if the allegations of fact relied upon in the application do not at least offer good grounds for suspicion that there has been such an irregularity. The Court will not entertain an application of a speculative nature based upon the applicant's opinion that there has been irregularity unless that opinion rests upon some substantial factual foundation.

Reasonable Grounds

  1. [39]
    In George v Rockett[23] the High Court relevantly provided:

When a statute prescribes that there must be 'reasonable grounds' for a state of mind - including suspicion and belief - it requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.

Irregularity

  1. [40]
    In Amerena[24], Merrell DP stated:
  1. [88]
    … the construction of the definition of 'irregularity' in s 595 does not include electioneering and only contemplates irregularities concerning machinery provisions and processes of an election and the formal steps in an election.

…

  1. [93]
    At the federal level, an 'irregularity' in relation to an election involves the idea of some departure from some rule, established practice or generally accepted principle governing the conduct of an election. [25]

...

  1. [106]
    The above legislative history and extrinsic material does not persuade me that … the Parliament, when including the present definitions of 'irregularity' and 'election' in the IR Act, intended to extend the meaning of 'irregularity' to include electioneering.
  1. [107]
    In the second place, the plain words used in the definition of 'irregularity', namely, 'irregularity includes … for an election or ballot', are more consistent with a legislative intention that it is only the process of an election or ballot that amounts to an irregularity. After all, the phrase 'in relation to' is an expression of broad import[26] whereas the present text is narrower. Further, having regard to the irregularity proposition, if the Parliament, by enacting the 1999 Act or the IR Act, intended to legislate in a manner contrary to the federal law and to expand the meaning of 'irregularity' to include electioneering, then it may reasonably have been expected that clear words would have been used to achieve that legislative intention.
  1. [108]
    I also note that a contention that the federal reforms meant that the ordinary meaning of 'irregularity in relation to an election for an office' extended to conduct affecting voting intentions, was rejected in Becker, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Australian Education Union, Queensland Branch[27] where Cooper J stated:
  1. 13
    The ordinary meaning of 'irregularity' in the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) which uses the phrase 'irregularity in relation to an election for an office' (the same phrase as used in the present Act) was no different from the meaning of the phrase in the 1904 Act which was the subject of the decision in Ex parte Marsh and the decision in Ex parte Hockings: see Re Post at 168; Re Davidson (1990) 31 IR 102.
  1. 14
    The applicant submitted that the introduction of s 190 into Sch 1B of the Act[28] had the effect that the ordinary meaning of the term 'irregularity in relation to an election for an office' was extended to include conduct affecting voting intentions.  In my opinion the extension of a statutory definition to include conduct which did not otherwise fall within the ordinary meaning of the phrase 'irregularity in relation to an election' does not alter the ordinary meaning of the phrase; it simply gives the meaning of the phrase an extended operation it would not otherwise have had.
  1. 15
    The ordinary meaning of the phrase in Pt 3 of ch 7 of Sch 1B of the Act, in my opinion, remains as stated by Gibbs CJ in Ex parte Marsh and as applied in Ex parte Hockings.  The question is whether any of the conduct particularised in the application as the irregularities did depart from some rule, established practice or generally accepted principle governing the conduct of the election.

The Election/Electioneering

  1. [41]
    As stated earlier, s 595 of the Act defines "election" as an election for an office for an organisation or branch of an organisation.
  1. [42]
    The Macquarie Dictionary[29], "electioneer"/"electioneering" is defined as:

electioneer…1. To work for the success of a candidate, party etc., in an election.

2. a person who engages in this activity.

- electioneering, adjective, noun

  1. [43]
    As Merrell DP outlined in Amerena[30]:

…the construction of the definition of 'irregularity' in s 595 of the Act does not include electioneering and only contemplates irregularities concerning machinery provisions and processes of an election and the formal steps in an election. [emphasis added]

  1. [44]
    In Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings[31], Gaudron J stated:
  1. 12.
    …those activities, commonly referred to as electioneering, by which candidates or persons acting in their interests seek, by their advocacy or by promoting or publicising such advocacy, to influence voters in reaching a decision for whom to vote.

…

  1. 14.
    …Similarly, s. 170(5) provides that, following a request in accordance with that section, 'the Industrial Registrar or Deputy Industrial Registrar … may conduct the election … or may make arrangements with the Electoral Commissioner for the conduct of the election by an Australian Electoral Officer or a member of the staff of the Australian Electoral Commission'. These provisions, in speaking of 'the conduct of (an) election', contemplate the machinery processes or the formal steps involved in the holding of an election. Within this  context it may be noted that s. 170(1) speaks of a request 'that an election … be conducted under this section with a view to ensuring that no irregularity occurs in or in connection with the election', thus suggesting that, bribery, intimidation and coercion aside, irregularities are directly associated with the machinery processes or formal steps involved in an election.

Policies

  1. [45]
    As held in Amerena[32], Merrell DP stated:
  1. [49]
    First, if the Policy is '… deemed to be in full force and effect' as provided for in the Rules, which then implicitly or explicitly means that the Policy is in full force and effect under the Rules, that would be contrary to the statutory scheme under ch 12 of the IR Act.
  1. [50]
    Chapter 12 of the IR Act deals with industrial organisations and associated entities. Upon application for registration as an employee or employer organisation, s 607(1)(c) of the IR Act provides that the Commission may grant the application only if satisfied the rules the applicant proposes to have as an organisation comply with ch 12, pt 3 and pt 4 and are not contrary to the IR Act or another law.

…

  1. [53]
    Importantly, ch 12, pt 6 of the IR Act deals with the amendment of the rules of an organisation. Division 2 deals with amendments made by organisations and sub-div 1 confers discretion on the Commission to significantly amend an organisation's name and to amend an eligibility rule. Sub-division 2 confers discretion on the Industrial Registrar for other amendments proposed to be made by organisations. Such amendment may only be made if the Industrial Registrar approves the amendment which can only be given if the amendment does not contravene s 623 of the IR Act or another law and the amendment has been proposed under the organisation's rules.
  1. [54]
    In my view, if a resolution, decision or determination made by a body, such as a conference or council, under an organisation's rules is '… deemed to be in full force and effect' and the resolution, decision or determination was implicitly or explicitly in full force and effect under those rules, that would have the practical effect of allowing an organisation to amend or alter its rules without the necessary approval under the IR Act. It is no answer, to that consequence, to say that such a resolution, decision or determination would only have such an effect if it was not inconsistent with the IR Act or another law. This is because the IR Act does not provide for amendment to an organisation's rules by that circuitous path.
  1. [55]
    Secondly, the provisions of ch 12 of the IR Act, such as those referred to above, expressly deal with the rules of an organisation. Chapter 12 also expressly deals with policies of organisations, such as s 617(2)(b)(iii). However, there is no provision in ch 12 of the IR Act that provides that a policy made under a registered organisation's rules has the effect as if the policy is in full force and effect under the rules.
  1. [56]
    Further, having regard to the rules proposition, there is no provision in ch 12 of the IR Act that provides that a valid policy made under an organisation's rules which, by a specific rule, is given full force and effect, such that 'effect' can be given to such a specific rule pursuant to, or for the purposes of, s 646(1)(b) of the IR Act.

Conclusion

  1. [46]
    It is clear that I am bound by a determination of the Commission (as a court of record) regarding the statutory interpretation of words defined in the Act.
  1. [47]
    An irregularity does not include electioneering.  The alleged irregularities identified by the Applicant and outlined in paragraph [21](e) through to, and including (p) of this decision, relating to electioneering, are not irregularities for an election inquiry within the definition outlined in the Act, and as addressed in Merrell DP's decision in Amerena.
  1. [48]
    A policy of a registered industrial organisation is not an irregularity.  The alleged irregularities identified by the Applicant and outlined in paragraph [21](a) through to, and including, (d) of this decision, relating to the policies of the First Respondent, are not irregularities for an election inquiry within the definition outlined in the Act, and as addressed in Merrell DP's decision in Amerena.
  1. [49]
    I have considered all the material and submissions regarding the production, publishing and distribution of "Your (2023) Presidential Team" (YPT) campaign materials to union representatives at workplaces, with "Ballot Checklist" instructions to "schedule a ballot meeting between the 16th and 17th of October", "hold the ballot meeting", and "post the ballots back" identified by the Applicant and outlined in paragraph [21](q)through to, and including (t) of this decision.  I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire whether there has been an irregularity (in preventing the free and full recording of a vote by all persons who may record a vote and by no other persons) in the election that may have affected, or may affect, the election result and that the circumstances justify an election inquiry.
  2. [50]
    I am also not satisfied that the suggested irregularity identified by the Applicant and outlined in paragraph [21](u) of this decision, regarding the secret faction "The Group", and the circumstances around this, justify an election inquiry.
  1. [51]
    The Returning Officer, in the declaration of the election result, confirmed that the conduct of the election was undertaken in accordance with the Rules and did not report any discrepancies in the correct working out or declaration of the results of voting.
  1. [52]
    I have also considered all other information and material before me and, pursuant to s 690 of the Act, I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire whether there has been an irregularity in the election that may have affected, or may affect, the election result and that the circumstances justify an election inquiry.

Order

  1. [53]
    I make the following order:

Pursuant to s 690 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the application filed on 9 May 2024 will not be referred to the Commission to conduct an election inquiry.

Footnotes

[1] Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2024] QIRC 157.

[2] Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2024] QIRC 272.

[3] Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 051.

[4] Queensland, Sixth and Final Report of the Commissioner Appointed to Inquire into the Activities of Particular Queensland Unions (Report, July 1991) ('Cooke Inquiry 6th Report').

[5] Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings [1989] HCA 42; (1989) 167 CLR 522.

[6] Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2023] QIRC 302.

[7] Re Jarman, Ex parte Cook (No 2) [1996] HCA 7; (1996) 136 ALR 233 at 241 per Kirby J.

[8] Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 16.

[9] Ibid.

[10] SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362.

[11] Citations omitted.

[12] R v A2 [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 269 CLR 507, [33] (Kiefel CJ and Keane J, with Nettle and Gordon JJ at [148] generally agreeing).

[13] Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2023] QIRC 302 at [90].

[14] Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355, [69] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).

[15] Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 248 CLR 378 at [26].

[16] Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503, [39] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ).

[17] Northern Territory v Collins [2008] HCA 49; (2008) 235 CLR 619, [16] (Gummow A-CJ and Kirby J).

[18] Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55;(2012) 250 CLR 503, [39] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ).

[19] Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 16 [3].

[20] BFW20 by his Litigation Representative BFW20A v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 562.

[21] Re An Application By Dannie Richard Davidson of An Inquiry Into An Election of An Office In the Musicians' Union of Australia, Newcastle Branch [1990] FCA 129; (1990) 22 FCR 449 at [23].

[22] Re Post; Re Election for Offices in Transport Workers Union of Australia, Western Australian Branch 1992] FCA 15; (1992) 40 IR 162 at [13].

[23] George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 at [8].

[24] Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2023] QIRC 302.

[25] Citing R v Gray; Ex parte Marsh [1985] HCA 67; (1985) 157 CLR 351 at 366 (Gibbs CJ, with Mason J at 374, Wilson J at 377, Brennan J at 382, Deane J at 383 and Dawson J at 392 agreeing) and Carovska, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, NSW Branch [2023] FCA 1129, [21]-[22] (Raper J).

[26] Citing O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd [1990] HCA 16; (1990) 169 CLR 356, 347 (Toohey and Gaudron JJ).

[27] Citing Becker, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Australian Education Union, Queensland Branch [2004] FCA 1534.

[28] Citing Section 6 (c) of Schedule 1B of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 provided that an irregularity in relation to an election or ballot included a contravention of s 190. Section 190 of Schedule 1B of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 relevantly provided:

  1. 190
    An organisation or branch commits an offence if it uses, or allows to be used, its property or resources to help a candidate against another candidate in an election under this Part for an office or other position.

[29] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 26 June 2026) "electioneer" (def 1 and 2).

[30] Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2023] QIRC 302 at [88].

[31] Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings [1989] HCA 42; (1989) 167 CLR 522 at 531 (Gaudron J with the other members of the Court substantially agreeing).

[32] Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2023] QIRC 302.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors (No. 3)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (No. 3)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 170

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Industrial Registrar Shelley

  • Date:

    03 Jul 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Amerena and Ors v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2023] QIRC 302
6 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 302
Cite 2 - [2023] QIRC 302
Cite 3 - [2023] QIRC 302
Cite 4 - [2023] QIRC 302
Cite 5 - [2023] QIRC 302
Cite 6 - [2023] QIRC 302
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 170 CLR 1
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation [2017] FCA 460
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] FCA 460
Becker, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Australian Education Union, Queensland Branch [2004] FCA 1534
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] FCA 1534
Cite 2 - [2004] FCA 1534
BFW20 by his Litigation Representative BFW20A v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 562
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] FCA 562
Cite 2 - [2020] FCA 562
Carovska, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, NSW Branch [2023] FCA 1129
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] FCA 1129
Cite 2 - [2023] FCA 1129
Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross [2012] HCA 56
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] HCA 56
Cite 2 - [2012] HCA 56
Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2012) 248 CLR 378
Cite 2 - (2012) 248 CLR 378
City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 199 CLR 135
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2012) 250 CLR 503
Cite 2 - (2012) 250 CLR 503
Cite 3 - (2012) 250 CLR 503
Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 16
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] FCAFC 16
Cite 2 - [2007] FCAFC 16
Cite 3 - [2007] FCAFC 16
Cite 4 - [2007] FCAFC 16
Commissioner of Taxation v Indooroopilly Children Services (Qld) Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 325
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) 158 FCR 325
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (1999) 199 CLR 135
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1999) 199 CLR 135
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) [2000] HCA 5
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] HCA 5
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] HCA 55
Cite 2 - [2012] HCA 55
Cite 3 - [2012] HCA 55
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 170 CLR 104
Cite 2 - (1990) 170 CLR 104
George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1990] HCA 26
Cite 2 - [1990] HCA 26
Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] HCA 33
Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 263 CLR 1
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) 263 CLR 1
In the matter of an application by William Robert Jacomb for an Inquiry relating to an election for office in the Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union [2000] 180 ALR 134
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] 180 ALR 134
Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees [2024] QIRC 157
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 157
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 157
Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 51
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QIRC 51
Cite 2 - [2025] QIRC 51
Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ors [2024] QIRC 272
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 272
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 272
Nimmo, in the matter of an application for an inquiry relating to an election for an office in the Australian Education Union (NT Branch) [2011] FCA 38
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] FCA 38
Northern Territory v Collins (2008) 235 CLR 619
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) 235 CLR 619
Cite 2 - (2008) 235 CLR 619
Northern Territory v Collins [2008] HCA 49
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2008] HCA 49
Cite 2 - [2008] HCA 49
O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd [1990] HCA 16
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1990] HCA 16
Cite 2 - [1990] HCA 16
O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 C.L.R, 356
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 169 C.L.R, 356
Cite 2 - (1990) 169 C.L.R, 356
P & C Cantarella Pty Ltd v Egg Marketing Board (NSW) [1973] 2 NSWLR 366
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1973] 2 NSWLR 366
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1998] HCA 28
Cite 2 - [1998] HCA 28
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 C.L.R 355
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1998) 194 C.L.R 355
Cite 2 - (1998) 194 C.L.R 355
R v A2 [2019] HCA 35
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] HCA 35
Cite 2 - [2019] HCA 35
R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 269 CLR 507
Cite 2 - (2019) 269 CLR 507
Re An Application By Dannie Richard Davidson of An Inquiry Into An Election of An Office In the Musicians' Union of Australia, Newcastle Branch [1990] FCA 129
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1990] FCA 129
Cite 2 - [1990] FCA 129
Re an application by Dannie Richard Davidson of an inquiry into an election of an office in the Musicians' Union of Australia, Newcastle Branch ('Davidson') (1990) 22 FCR 449
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 22 FCR 449
Cite 2 - (1990) 22 FCR 449
Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings [1989] HCA 42
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1989] HCA 42
Cite 2 - [1989] HCA 42
Cite 3 - [1989] HCA 42
Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings (1989) 167 CLR 522
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1989) 167 CLR 522
Cite 2 - (1989) 167 CLR 522
Cite 3 - (1989) 167 CLR 522
Re Davidson (1990) 31 IR 102
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 31 IR 102
Re Jarman, Ex parte Cook (No 2 [1996] HCA 7
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1996] HCA 7
Cite 2 - [1996] HCA 7
Re Jarman, Ex parte Cook (No 2) (1996) 136 ALR 233
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 136 ALR 233
Cite 2 - (1996) 136 ALR 233
Re Post; Re Election for Offices in Transport Workers Union of Australia, Western Australian Branch [1992] FCA 15
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1992] FCA 15
Re Post; Re Election for Offices in Transport Workers Union of Australia, Western Australian Branch (1992) 40 IR 162
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1992) 40 IR 162
Cite 2 - (1992) 40 IR 162
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) 262 CLR 362
Cite 2 - (2017) 262 CLR 362
Sztal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) HCA 34
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) HCA 34
Cite 2 - (2017) HCA 34
The Queen v Gray; Ex parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1985) 157 CLR 351
The Queen v Gray; Ex parte Marsh [1985] HCA 67
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1985] HCA 67
Cite 2 - [1985] HCA 67
Truth About Motorways v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management (1999) 200 CLR 591
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1999) 200 CLR 591
White, in the matter of an election for an office in Transport Workers' Union of Australia, Queensland Branch [2019] FCA 2131
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] FCA 2131

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.