Re McJannet; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union of Employees (Qld) [1997] HCA 40

Re McJannet; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union of Employees (Qld) [1997] HCA 40

Section 347(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth did not apply to the High Court prohibition proceeding because the prosecutors sought to enforce the duty of the Federal Court not to assume jurisdiction it did not have, not any right or duty created by the Act. The respondent organisation was unsuccessful in this Court, so the ordinary rule as to costs applied. However, the proceeding in the Federal Court was in a matter arising under the Act because the respondents there claimed a right under the Act, so no costs order could be made in respect of that proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Prohibition / Costs Determination After Order Absolute for Prohibition
Outcome
The respondent industrial organisation was ordered to pay the prosecutors' costs of the application for prohibition and the argument on costs in the High Court.
Legal Topics
['high Court Prohibition Under S 75(v) of the Constitution' 'costs in Matters Arising Under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth']
['industrial Law' 'constitutional Law' 'costs'] ['high Court Prohibition Under S 75(v) of the Constitution' 'costs in Matters Arising Under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Prohibition / Costs Determination After Order Absolute for Prohibition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s 347(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth prevented the High Court from ordering the respondent industrial organisation to pay the prosecutors' costs of the prohibition proceeding." 'Whether the proceeding in the High Court was a proceeding in a matter arising under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth.' 'Whether costs could be ordered in respect of the proceeding in the Federal Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 347(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth did not apply to the High Court prohibition proceeding because the prosecutors sought to enforce the duty of the Federal Court not to assume jurisdiction it did not have, not any right or duty created by the Act. The respondent organisation was unsuccessful in this Court, so the ordinary rule as to costs applied. However, the proceeding in the Federal Court was in a matter arising under the Act because the respondents there claimed a right under the Act, so no costs order could be made in respect of that proceeding.

Court Disposition

The respondent industrial organisation was ordered to pay the prosecutors' costs of the application for prohibition and the argument on costs in the High Court.

Orders

  • ["The respondent, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, to pay the prosecutors' costs of and incidental to the application for prohibition." "The respondent, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, to pay the prosecutors' costs of the argument on costs in this Court."]