R v Kelly; Ex parte Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association [1955] HCA 20
Section 19 of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1952 does not bar an organization from being represented by its officer who is a barrister, provided the officer acts in that capacity and not as counsel. The Chief Judge's refusal on this ground was a misconstruction of s. 19, and mandamus lies to correct it.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Order Nisi (mandamus) / Judgment on Whether to Make Order Nisi Absolute
- Outcome
- Mandamus is available but order not made absolute; no present order made.
- Legal Topics
- ['representation Before Tribunals' 'statutory Interpretation' 'mandamus']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Order Nisi (mandamus) / Judgment on Whether to Make Order Nisi Absolute
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Does s. 19 of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1952 preclude an organization's officer, who is also a barrister, from representing the organization?" "Is mandamus available to correct the Chief Judge's refusal to permit such representation?"]
Ratio Decidendi
Section 19 of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1952 does not bar an organization from being represented by its officer who is a barrister, provided the officer acts in that capacity and not as counsel. The Chief Judge's refusal on this ground was a misconstruction of s. 19, and mandamus lies to correct it.
Court Disposition
Mandamus is available but order not made absolute; no present order made.
Orders
- []
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment