R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP

Last updated

R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP
Coat of arms of Australia (1908-1912).svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameThe King v the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Ex parte the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited; the Commonwealth of Australia intervening.
Decided23 April 1909
Citations [1909] HCA 20, (1909) 8 CLR 419
Case history
Prior actionBarrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association of Broken Hill v Broken Hill Proprietary Co (1909) 3 CAR 1 per Higgins  President.
Court membership
Judges sitting Griffith CJ, O'Connor & Isaacs   JJ

R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP, [1] was an early decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in which the High Court controversially, [2] granted prohibition against the Arbitration Court to prevent it from enforcing aspects of an industrial award. The High Court held that the Arbitration Court had gone beyond settling the dispute that had been submitted to it and in doing so had made a jurisdictional error.

Contents

Background

Mining at Broken Hill

Mining commenced at Broken Hill, NSW in 1885, initially for lead in the form of galena and then the ore deposit was found to contain silver & zinc. [3] As well as the mine at Broken Hill, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited (BHP) had also established smelter operations at Port Pirie in South Australia. [4] In 1892 there was a strike by miner's at Broken Hill that was precipitated by a decision to terminate the 1889 and 1890 agreements that prevented the introduction of a contract system for ore excavation and reduced the working week from 48 hours to 46. [5] The strike was abandoned after 16 weeks when several strike leaders were imprisoned for 'unlawful conspiracy and inciting riots'. As a result of the defeat of the strike, there was a 10% reduction in wages, the working week went back up to 48 hours and contract mining continued. The defeat of this and other strikes of the 1890s, the maritime dispute and the shearers' strike, have been seen as the cause of the creation and electoral support for the Australian Labor Party. [6] Not all historians accept this thesis with some doubting the simple causal relationship between the strike and the formation of the Labor party. [7]

The constitution

The constitutional convention in 1891 came after the maritime dispute and at the start of the shearers' strike. [8] It was with this background that Charles Kingston, the then Premier of South Australia, unsuccessfully proposed that the Australian parliament have the power to establish courts of conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes. [9] The proposal was taken up at the 1897 conventions by H. B. Higgins, then a member of the Parliament of Victoria, later to become a judge of the High Court and the second President of the Arbitration court. The industrial disputes proposal was initially unsuccessful, [10] however Higgins was undeterred and the proposal succeeded in 1898. [11]

The Commonwealth power to make laws in relation to interstate industrial disputes is in subsection 51(xxxv) of the Constitution which provides:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxxv) conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State; [12]

The dispute at the BHP mine

In December 1906 BHP and the unions entered into a two-year agreement that increased wages at the mine with the lowest paid workers receiving a 15% increase from 7s 6d, [13] per 8-hour shift to 8s 7½d, [14] In August 1908 the Chairman of BHP stated that wages needed to be cut at its Broken Hill mine because low metals prices, particularly lead, were making the mine uneconomic. [15] On 7 December 1908 BHP posted notices at Broken Hill and Port Pirie stating that "The bonus granted for two years dating from 1st January, 1907, will cease on 1st January, 1909, and that the present rate of wages, less the bonus, will remain in force" The bonus referred to was the agreed increase from 1906 and that what BHP intended to do was drop wages to the 1906 rates. The unions sought the assistance of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, seeking that the agreement reached with the other mining companies at Broken Hill should govern BHP and its employees. [16] BHP wouldn't pay the 1908 rates and the employees wouldn't accept the 1906 rates with the result that all of BHPs operations at Broken Hill and Port Pirie shut down, with around 4,000 employees out of work. BHP offered to pay the employees the 1906 rates and put the difference into a trust fund that would depend on the decision of the Arbitration Court. [17] The unions and employees set up pickets outside the operations to prevent them being operated by 'scabs'. The pickets were marred by violence, on Monday 4 January the Silverton Tramway was damaged by dynamite and stones were thrown at police. [18] On Saturday 9 January 1909 the violence escalated with bloody clashes involving thousands of protesters and police, resulting charges of riot, rout and unlawful assembly. [19] [20] Five of those charged were tried in Albury with the balance dealt with by the local court. Walter Stokes, John May, Sid Robinson & E.H. Gray being convicted, [21] while Tom Mann was subsequently acquitted. [22] Harry Holland, Secretary of the Socialist Federation of Australia, was also tried in Albury on charges of sedition and inciting to violence over a speech he gave on 14 February in which he was alleged to have said "If you are going to fight, put a little ginger into it, or to be plain-spoken—dynamite. That's the way to win." He was convicted and sentenced to two years in gaol, although he was released after serving five to six months. [21]

The President of the Court, Higgins J, maintained the requirement of a "living wage" he had established in the Harvester case , [23] despite the High Court holding in R v Barger that the Excise Act 1906 which gave rise to the Harvester decision was constitutionally invalid. [24] Higgins J made an award on 12 March 1909. holding that "unless great multitudes of people are to be irretrievably injured in themselves and in their families, it is necessary to keep this living wage as a thing sacrosanct, beyond the reach of bargaining". [25] In this regard his Honour relied on the Court's function to settle disputes, holding that:

I cannot conceive of any such industrial dispute as this being settled effectively which fails to secure to the labourer enough wherewith to renew his strength and to maintain his home from day to day. He will dispute, he must dispute, until he gets this minimum; even as a man immersed can never rest until he gets his head above the water. [26]

The award, to be applied at Broken Hill and Port Pirie was as follows:

  1. Forty-eight hours per week shall constitute a full week's work.
  2. The following official holidays shall be recognised and allowed :-Eight-hours Day, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday.
  3. Overtime shall be paid for at the rate of time and a quarter, including all time of work on a seventh day in any week, or on official holidays, and all time of work done in excess of the ordinary shift during each day of twenty-four hours shall be reckoned as overtime.
  4. In setting contracts for breaking ore underground the representative of the Mining Company and the contractors shall exercise their best judgment so as to provide that each contractor shall earn 12S. per shift of eight hours.
  5. Prescribe that the rates of wages appearing in the Schedule be the minimum rates paid to all members of the claimant organization who may be employed by the respondent Company during the term of this award.
  6. Order that no contracts be set by the Company except as to work for which contracts have been usually set by the Company since the 11th December 1906. [27]

The High Court application

BHP applied to the High Court for a writ of prohibition compelling the Arbitration Court and the President, a judge of the High Court, to appear before the court to show cause why they should not be prohibited from further proceeding on the award. [28] BHP challenged the award on 7 grounds

  1. There was no interstate industry;
  2. There was no interstate dispute;
  3. The miners had ceased to be employed before making the award;
  4. Clauses (1) & (3) of the award was not part of the dispute at Port Pirie;
  5. Clause 6 was not part of the dispute between the parties;
  6. Clause 6 was beyond jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court;
  7. If clause 6 was within jurisdiction then Act is unconstitutional.

Blackett appeared for the Arbitration Court. [29] Arthur appeared for the Miners Association, Irvine KC represented BHP and Cullen KC appeared for the Commonwealth which intervened.

Decision

The High Court made an order prohibiting the Arbitration Court from enforcing clauses 1 & 3 of the award at Port Pirie and clause 6.

Interstate industrial dispute

The majority, Griffith CJ & O'Connor J briefly rejected an interpretation of section 51(xxxv) that there must be an interstate industry, holding that this did not reflect the words of the constitution. [30] Isaacs J held that even if there was such a requirement, the operations of BHP, from mining to smelting was part of the same industry. [31]

Each of Griffith CJ, O'Connor & Isaacs JJ considered in detail whether the evidence established as a question of fact that there was an interstate dispute, referring to the decision in Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association, [32] before concluding that there was a "dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State". [33] Implicit in the decision is that upon an application for a prerogative writ under s. 75 (v.) of the Constitution it is for the High Court to determine for itself whether a dispute really exists and to determine that upon evidence placed before the High Court. [34]

The miners had ceased to be employed before making the award

None of the judges considered there was any substance to the argument that the miners in stopping work had ceased to be employed before the award was made, holding as a question of fact that the employees, while ceasing work, did not intend to end the employment relationship. [35]

The extent of the dispute

Griffiths CJ rejected the contention of the President during the arbitration hearing that "in settling the dispute I have power to do anything in pursuance of the Act that may settle the dispute". [36] holding that :

I cannot assent to that assertion of power in those terms. Sec. 38, par. (u), of the Act authorizes the Court to give all such directions and do all such things as it deems necessary or expedient in the premises. I apprehend that those words empower the President to deal with all matters incidental and ancillary, provided they are within the ambit of the dispute submitted to him. But the Court cannot of its own motion give directions in a matter not substantially involved in or connected with the disputes submitted to it. [37]

It was a condition of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court not only that there should be a dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State, but also that the court should obtain cognizance of the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act. "This ... is a condition of jurisdiction: the dispute must not only exist but must be submitted to the court" [38]

Similarly O'Connor J held that there were three conditions required to give the Arbitration Court jurisdiction: (1) the dispute must be an industrial dispute, extending beyond the limits of one State; (2) it must be between employer and employee; and (3) it must be duly brought under the cognizance of the Court, it being one of "the first principles of judicial determination, that no person should be called upon to answer a claim unless it is put in such a form as will give him notice of what he has to answer," [39]

The dispute in relation to contracts only went so far as clause 4 and did not extend to a limitation on any other contract and therefore clause 6 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. Similarly the award limitation on hours at Port Pirie (clause 1) and the payment of overtime for work beyond those hours (clause 3) were not part of the dispute and were beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. [40]

Prohibition

The order sought by BHP was to prevent the Arbitration Court from enforcing the award, however the decision says nothing about who may enforce the award, in that section 44 permits any affected union member to enforce the award before any magistrate. [41] The argument set out in the law report does not address the question of whether prohibition was the appropriate remedy and none of the judges referred to the issue. [1] The traditional supervisory writ to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its authority was the writ of certiorari by which the decision of the lower court is brought up and quashed. The constitution however omits certiorari from those powers contained in setting out the original jurisdiction of the High Court. [42] In this way the High Court granted prohibition where certiorari would have been an appropriate remedy and extended the scope of prohibition beyond generally accepted limits. [43]

The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 provided at s 31 that "No award of the Court shall be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question in any other Court on any account whatever". [41] This aspect does not appear to have been given any consideration, neither in argument nor in the decision. [1]

Aftermath

Higgins J issued a statement following the decision of the High Court in which he took issue with various findings of fact made by the High Court. [44]

While the award restored the miners wages to 8s 7½d per day, none of the miners received those wages as the mine had been closed since January 1909, [45] [46] and would not re-open for two years. [47]

The case was one of 11 decisions of the High Court referred to by the Attorney-General, Billy Hughes, as cutting down the Commonwealth's powers until they were futile and justifying the changes proposed in the 1913 referendum. [2] The case however was not decided on the basis of the constitution, thus despite the reference to this case by the Attorney-General, there was nothing in the 1913 referendum that would have affected its outcome.

The decision was one of a series in which the High Court asserted its power to correct jurisdictional error and in doing so expanded the scope of prohibition beyond the reach it had in English courts. [43]

Related Research Articles

In law, ex parte is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of", thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. In English law and its derivatives, namely Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s 51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia is the part of the Constitution of Australia that deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws, and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent state laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdiction is considered persuasive in the others.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

<i>Harvester case</i> Australian labour law decision

Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the Excise Tariff Act 1906 which imposed an excise duty on goods manufactured in Australia, £6 in the case of a stripper harvester, however if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees, it was excused from paying the excise duty. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration</span> Australian court (1904 to 1956)

The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was an Australian court that operated from 1904 to 1956 with jurisdiction to hear and arbitrate interstate industrial disputes, and to make awards. It also had the judicial functions of interpreting and enforcing awards and hearing other criminal and civil cases relating to industrial relations law.

<i>Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally</i>

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

<i>Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to the Commonwealth Government's power to make laws for the conciliation and arbitration of interstate industrial disputes under subsection 51(xxxv) of the Australian Constitution and the incidental power under subsection 51(xxxix), but in reaching a decision set principles on matters of statutory interpretation affecting the Constitution.

<i>Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd</i> 1918 judgement in Australian law

Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1918 regarding judicial power of the Commonwealth which established that Chapter III of the Constitution required judges to be appointed for life to a specific court, subject only to the removal provisions in the constitution. The majority of the High Court held that because the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was appointed for seven years and not life as required by s 72 of the Constitution, the Arbitration Court could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth.

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd</i> Landmark Australian court case

Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd, commonly known as the Woodworkers case or the Sawmillers case was a decision of the High Court of Australia in 1909 concerning the question whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. The High Court was divided 2:2 and thus the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed, in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority. Griffith CJ, O'Connor J agreeing, held that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with the minimum wages fixed by a Wages Board under a State law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP [1909] HCA 20 , (1909) 8 CLR 419.
  2. 1 2 Billy Hughes,  Attorney-General (19 November 1912). "Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. pp. 5607–5609.
  3. ↑ M Scott (2015). "Broken Hill: Australia's mining heart". The Australian Mining Review.
  4. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at 428.
  5. ↑ Blainey G (1968). The Rise of Broken Hill. Macmillan. pp. 61–2. ISBN   9780333106822.
  6. ↑ "The formation and role of the Australian Labor Party". Revolutionary Socialist Party. Archived from the original on 4 March 2011.
  7. ↑ Murphy DJ, ed. (1975). The state labor parties in Australia 1880–1920 (PDF). University of Queensland Press. pp. 3–4.
  8. ↑ Frazer, A (2002). "The Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Power: from Cradle to the Grave?" (PDF). Department of the Parliamentary Library. p. 3.
  9. ↑ "Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention, 6 April 1891". Mr Kingston at p. 780-1 vote at p. 785, 12 in favour, 25 opposed, including Barton & Griffith.
  10. ↑ "Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Adelaide, 17 April 1897". H Higgins at p. 782, vote at p. 793, 12 in favour, including Higgins & Isaacs, 22 opposed, including Barton & O'Connor.
  11. ↑ "Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 27 January 1898". vote at p. 212, 22 in favour, including Higgins & Isaacs, 19 opposed, including Barton & O'Connor.
  12. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 51.
  13. ↑ 7 shillings & 6 pence: see coins of the Australian pound.
  14. ↑ Barrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association v BHP (1909) 3 CAR 1 at p. 3.
  15. ↑ "The wages question". Barrier Miner . 7 August 1908. p. 4 – via National Library of Australia.
  16. ↑ Barrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association v BHP (1909) 3 CAR 1 at p. 17-8.
  17. ↑ "Tuesday, January 5, 1909". The Argus . 5 January 1909. p. 4 – via National Library of Australia.
  18. ↑ "Trouble at Broken Hill, Railway line damaged". The Argus . 5 January 1909. p. 5 – via National Library of Australia.
  19. ↑ "Charges of rioting". Barrier Miner . 18 January 1909. p. 5 – via National Library of Australia.
  20. ↑ "Barrier riots. Frenzied yelling crowds". The Sydney Morning Herald . 11 January 1909. p. 7 – via National Library of Australia.
  21. 1 2 Bertha Walker (1972). solidarity forever: The life & times of Percy Laidlaw. Archived from the original on 28 February 2016.
  22. ↑ "Acquittal of Tom Mann". The Sydney Morning Herald. 30 April 1909. p. 6 – via National Library of Australia.
  23. ↑ Ex parte H.V. McKay (Harvester case) (1907) 2 CAR 1.
  24. ↑ R v Barger [1908] HCA 43 , (1908) 6 CLR 41.
  25. ↑ Barrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association v BHP (1909) 3 CAR 1 at p. 32.
  26. ↑ Barrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association v BHP (1909) 3 CAR 1 at pp. 20–1.
  27. ↑ Barrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association v BHP (1909) 3 CAR 1 at pp. 37–8.
  28. ↑ A writ of prohibition is one of the prerogative writs, which are traditionally brought in the name of the Monarch and the person who must show cause is named as the defendant. In this usage Ex parte means 'on the application of' rather than its other use as a case heard in the absence of a party. Thus the case name means the King (R) v the defendants (The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration); on the application of (Ex parte) BHP. The order to show cause is a rule nisi, and if prohibition is granted, the rule is made absolute.
  29. ↑ Both the Court and the President were named in the order nisi, however there was no appearance for the President. The Court appeared, with the Registrar filing the evidence below: see (1909) 3 CAR 1 at pp. 43–4 & 75.
  30. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at 431–2 per Griffith CJ & at 445 per O'Connor J.
  31. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at 454 per Isaacs J.
  32. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association [1908] HCA 95 , (1909) 6 CLR 309..
  33. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at 432–7 per Griffith CJ, at 446–9 per O'Connor J & at 454–5 per Isaacs J.
  34. ↑ R v Blakeley; Ex parte Association of Architects of Australia [1950] HCA 40 , (1950) 82 CLR 54 at p 73 per Latham CJ.
  35. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at 437–8 per Griffith CJ, at 445–6 per O'Connor J & at 455 per Isaacs J.
  36. ↑ Barrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association v BHP (1909) 3 CAR 1 at p. 73.
  37. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at pp. 440–1
  38. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at pp. 439 per Griffith CJ; see also at p. 455 per Isaacs J.
  39. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at pp. 449–50 per O'Connor J.
  40. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex p BHP (1909) 8 CLR 419 at pp. 440–3 per Griffith CJ; at pp. 451–3 per O'Connor J and p. 456-9 per Isaacs J.
  41. 1 2 "Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904". Cth. 15 December 1904.
  42. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 75.
  43. 1 2 Aitken, L (29 January 1986). "The High Court's Power to Grant Certiorari – The Unsolved Question". Federal Law Review. 16 (4): 370–385. doi:10.1177/0067205X8601600403. S2CID   159448226. [1986] Federal Law Review 18.
  44. ↑ Barrier Branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association v BHP (1909) 3 CAR 1 at pp. 72–77.
  45. ↑ "The Broken Hill Award". The Register . 13 March 1909. p. 8 – via National Library of Australia.
  46. ↑ "Mr Justice Higgins award favours the miners". The Sydney Morning Herald . 13 March 1909. p. 8 – via National Library of Australia.
  47. ↑ "2009 marks centenary of Broken Hill's BHP union Lockout". ABC. Retrieved 8 December 2016.
  48. ↑ Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co [1910] HCA 53 , (1910) 11 CLR 311 .
  49. ↑ The "Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1911". Cth. 15 December 1904. amended section 31 to read "No award or order of the Court shall be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question or be subject to prohibition or mandamus in any other Court on any account whatever."
  50. ↑ R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration Ex parte The Brisbane Tramways Company Limited (Tramways case) [1914] HCA 15 , (1914) 18 CLR 54
  51. ↑ R v Hibble; Ex parte BHP [1921] HCA 15 , (1921) 29 CLR 290
  52. ↑ R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton [1945] HCA 53 , (1945) 70 CLR 598
  53. ↑ Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW [2010] HCA 1 , (2010) 239 CLR 531
  54. ↑ A Moses SC; Y Shariff (29 January 2024). "Beyond Power: State Supreme Courts, the Constitution and Privative Provisions". Bar News: The Journal of the New South Wales Bar Association. [2010] NSW Bar Association News 14.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.