R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte The Angliss Group [1969] HCA 10

R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte The Angliss Group [1969] HCA 10

In the context of the Commission's functions in developing and applying broad arbitral policy, the President's pronouncement in the 1967 National Wage Case was at most an expression of a general tendency of mind favouring equal pay when economic and industrial circumstances permitted. Such an expression of opinion on a general question of policy, even if accompanied by a step in furtherance of that policy, did not provide reasonable grounds to apprehend that the President or Deputy President could not bring fair and unprejudiced minds to the union's award-variation application; prohibition was therefore not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Prohibition / High Court Original Jurisdiction; Application Determined After Cur. Adv. Vult.
Outcome
Application for writ of prohibition refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'apprehended Bias' 'prohibition' 'commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission' 'wage Fixation' 'equal Pay']
['administrative Law' 'industrial Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['natural Justice' 'apprehended Bias' 'prohibition' 'commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission' 'wage Fixation' 'equal Pay']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Prohibition / High Court Original Jurisdiction; Application Determined After Cur. Adv. Vult.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the President and a Deputy President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission were disqualified from hearing the union's award-variation application because of reasonable apprehension of prejudgment or bias arising from statements in the 1967 National Wage Case." 'Whether common law principles of natural justice required prohibition restraining those Commission members from sitting.' 'Whether this Court should grant prohibition under s. 75 (v) of the Constitution to a member of the Commission.']

Ratio Decidendi

In the context of the Commission's functions in developing and applying broad arbitral policy, the President's pronouncement in the 1967 National Wage Case was at most an expression of a general tendency of mind favouring equal pay when economic and industrial circumstances permitted. Such an expression of opinion on a general question of policy, even if accompanied by a step in furtherance of that policy, did not provide reasonable grounds to apprehend that the President or Deputy President could not bring fair and unprejudiced minds to the union's award-variation application; prohibition was therefore not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for writ of prohibition refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for writ of prohibition refused with costs.' 'Motion dismissed.']