Buttrose J:

In this action the plaintiff seeks:

(1) A declaration that the purported election of defendants Nos 2 to 16 to the executive committee of the first defendant union, (hereinafter referred to as 'the union'), held on 4, 5, 6 and 7 April 1966, is null and void.

(2) An order to restrain the first defendant from proceeding to hold its annual general meeting fixed for 14 April 1966, until after the trial of this action or further order.

(3) An order to restrain the defendants Nos 2 to 16 and each of them from taking office as the executive committee of the union by virtue of their purported election to office on 7 April 1966, and otherwise by themselves, their servants or agents from intermeddling in the union business or the management of its affairs.

(4) An order that the first defendant do forthwith proceed to conduct a fresh election to its executive committee lawfully and in accordance with the rules of the union and with proper checks.

This matter originally came before me by way of motion on behalf of the plaintiff for an order that the interim injunction granted ex parte by Choor Singh J on 13 April 1966, restraining:

(a) the first defendant from proceeding to hold its annual general meeting fixed for 14 April 1966, until after the hearing of a motion returnable on Monday, 18 April 1966, until further order; and

(b) defendants Nos 2 to 16 and each of them from taking office as members of the executive committee of the union by virtue of their purported election to office on 7 April 1966 and otherwise by themselves, their servants or agents from intermeddling in the union business or the management of its affairs until after the hearing of a motion returnable on Monday 18 April 1966, or until further order; may be continued until after the trial of this action or until further order.

The motion came on for hearing on 18 April 1966. There was an application by both parties to cross-examine deponents on their affidavits and this was proceeded with, but not concluded when the Court rose at the end of the day and the motion was adjourned for further hearing on a date to be fixed by the registrar.

At the resumed hearing on 29 April 1966, I was informed by Counsel for both parties that it had been agreed to treat the motion as the trial of the action and that they proposed to call evidence for this purpose in the normal way.

I thereupon adjourned the hearing until 3 May 1966, when the trial of the action proceeded.

It may be observed, in passing, that as the result of this course being taken there were no pleadings and no discovery both highly desirable and necessary in a case of this kind. The issues were never crystallized until all the evidence had been called and neither Counsel saw it fit to open the case on behalf of their respective clients. To say the least of it, I consider this an unfortunate circumstance in a case of this magnitude and importance.

Be that as it may I turn now to deal with the matter as it was presented to me.

The plaintiff is a member of the union and so are the defendants Nos 2 to 16. The first defendant is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Ordinance (Cap. 154).

The defendants Nos 2 to 16 were declared to have been elected to the executive committee of the union for the year 1966/67 at elections held therefore on 4, 5, 6 and 7 April 1966.

The plaintiff complains that these elections were not held in accordance with the rules of the union, nor with the procedure for the holding of the election notified to the members by the executive committee on the advice of the union's solicitors.

The matters of which the plaintiff complains may be summarised briefly as follows:

(1) Ballot papers were not distributed to all the members in breach of r. 19(c). Under this heading the plaintiff says that one person was refused a vote and other votes were improperly rejected. He further alleges that not enough publicity was given to the election.

(2) Insufficient time wa