R v Forbes; Ex parte Bevan [1972] HCA 34

R v Forbes; Ex parte Bevan [1972] HCA 34

The Commonwealth Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to make the ex parte order restraining dealings with the society's funds. Section 141 did not authorise such an order because the persons affected had not been given an opportunity to be heard and the order was not confined to requiring observance of the society's rules. The Court's status as a superior court of record and any inherent jurisdiction did not confer a general power over property unrelated to the issues in the s. 141 proceedings, and the regulations and High Court Rules did not supply such authority because the funds were not the subject of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Applications for Prohibition and Certiorari Arising From Interlocutory Ex Parte Orders of the Commonwealth Industrial Court / Return of Orders Nisi Before the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Orders nisi for prohibition made absolute.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Industrial Court' 'conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 1970 Cth S. 141' 'inherent Jurisdiction of a Superior Court of Record' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'prohibition and Certiorari']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Industrial Court' 'conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 1970 Cth S. 141' 'inherent Jurisdiction of a Superior Court of Record' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'prohibition and Certiorari']

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

Applications for Prohibition and Certiorari Arising From Interlocutory Ex Parte Orders of the Commonwealth Industrial Court / Return of Orders Nisi Before the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Commonwealth Industrial Court had jurisdiction to make an ex parte interlocutory order restraining withdrawal or transfer of an organisation's moneys and securities pending proceedings under s. 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1970 Cth." 'Whether s. 141 authorised an order made without giving the persons against whom it was sought an opportunity to be heard.' "Whether the Court's status as a superior court of record, or regs. 46 and 47 and the High Court Rules, supplied power to make the order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Commonwealth Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to make the ex parte order restraining dealings with the society's funds. Section 141 did not authorise such an order because the persons affected had not been given an opportunity to be heard and the order was not confined to requiring observance of the society's rules. The Court's status as a superior court of record and any inherent jurisdiction did not confer a general power over property unrelated to the issues in the s. 141 proceedings, and the regulations and High Court Rules did not supply such authority because the funds were not the subject of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Orders nisi for prohibition made absolute.

Orders

  • ['The orders nisi for prohibition made by Walsh J. on 6 April 1972 be made absolute.' "The respondents, William George Forbes and Michael Drinkwater, to pay the prosecutor's costs."]