R v Commonwealth Conciliation & Arbitration Commission; Metal Trades Employers' Association, Ex p [1966] HCA 8

R v Commonwealth Conciliation & Arbitration Commission; Metal Trades Employers' Association, Ex p [1966] HCA 8

The prosecutor's claim was not inseverable in a way that denied jurisdiction to a bench unable to grant the whole claim. The statute did not support that proposition. The part of the prosecutor's application that did not involve an alteration of the basic wage could be heard by a properly constituted bench including a Commissioner after the President's direction under s. 34 (3), so there was no substantial ground for doubting the President's power or the bench's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Prohibition / Rule Nisi
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged with costs.
Legal Topics
['commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Jurisdiction' 'variation of Metal Trades Award' 'basic Wage' 'margins' 'prohibition']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law'] ['commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Jurisdiction' 'variation of Metal Trades Award' 'basic Wage' 'margins' 'prohibition']

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 Prohibition / Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had power to nominate separate benches to hear parts of the applications and log of claims.' "Whether the prosecutor's log of claims was inseverable so that the whole log had to be heard by the same bench." "Whether a bench including a Commissioner had jurisdiction to hear parts of the prosecutor's log and the respondent unions' application that did not involve an alteration of the basic wage."]

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecutor's claim was not inseverable in a way that denied jurisdiction to a bench unable to grant the whole claim. The statute did not support that proposition. The part of the prosecutor's application that did not involve an alteration of the basic wage could be heard by a properly constituted bench including a Commissioner after the President's direction under s. 34 (3), so there was no substantial ground for doubting the President's power or the bench's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged with costs.

Orders

  • ['Rule nisi discharged with costs.']