R v Moore; Ex parte Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association [1982] HCA 5

R v Moore; Ex parte Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association [1982] HCA 5

The Court discharged the order nisi because the prosecutor did not show that the Commission failed to determine the dispute according to law or committed an error of law. Mr. Commissioner Clarkson's adherence to established Full Bench Wage Fixing Principles did not amount to a failure to hear and determine the referred matter. An appeal to a Full Bench was available under s. 35, subject to the statutory public-interest opinion. Gibbs C.J. and Stephen J. held that s. 31 (1) (b) did not of itself deprive the Commissioner of jurisdiction on these facts, but that it was proper for a single Commissioner to follow Full Bench principles and leave any departure to a Full Bench. Aickin J. and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Mandamus or Alternatively Certiorari and Mandamus / Return of an Order Nisi in the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Order nisi discharged.
Legal Topics
['australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Jurisdiction' 'wage Fixing Principles and Indexation Guidelines' 'mandamus and Certiorari' 'industrial Dispute Arbitration' 'common Rule Doctrine' 'appeal From a Commissioner to a Full Bench']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Jurisdiction' 'wage Fixing Principles and Indexation Guidelines' 'mandamus and Certiorari' 'industrial Dispute Arbitration' 'common Rule Doctrine' 'appeal From a Commissioner to a Full Bench']

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 Mandamus or Alternatively Certiorari and Mandamus / Return of an Order Nisi in the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr. Commissioner Clarkson failed to hear and determine the industrial dispute according to law by treating himself as constrained by the Wage Fixing Principles or Indexation Guidelines formulated by a Full Bench in other proceedings.' 'Whether s. 31 (1) (b) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 Cth prevented a single Commissioner from making an award departing from Full Bench wage fixation principles.' "Whether an appeal lay to a Full Bench under s. 35 from Mr. Commissioner Clarkson's award after part of the dispute had been referred to him by a Full Bench." "Whether the Commission's use of Wage Fixing Principles amounted to making an impermissible common rule or unlawfully fettering discretion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court discharged the order nisi because the prosecutor did not show that the Commission failed to determine the dispute according to law or committed an error of law. Mr. Commissioner Clarkson's adherence to established Full Bench Wage Fixing Principles did not amount to a failure to hear and determine the referred matter. An appeal to a Full Bench was available under s. 35, subject to the statutory public-interest opinion. Gibbs C.J. and Stephen J. held that s. 31 (1) (b) did not of itself deprive the Commissioner of jurisdiction on these facts, but that it was proper for a single Commissioner to follow Full Bench principles and leave any departure to a Full Bench. Aickin J. and...

Court Disposition

Order nisi discharged.

Orders

  • ['Order nisi discharged.']