Hart v Palmer [1913] HCA 78
Unless a previous decision is reviewed and reversed by a full bench, this Court is bound by it; thus, the Musicians' Case stands and the Conciliation Court proceeds without disturbing earlier decisions.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Ratt; Respondent: Avsraattan Agricultural Co.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 November 1913
- Procedural Posture
- Motion / Disposition
- Outcome
- Motion dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Prohibition, Jurisdiction, Public Policy
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ratt
Applicant
Avsraattan Agricultural Co.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Motion / Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decision in the Musicians' Case should be reversed
- 2 Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue prohibition
- 3 Effect of common law agreements to settle disputes
Ratio Decidendi
Unless a previous decision is reviewed and reversed by a full bench, this Court is bound by it; thus, the Musicians' Case stands and the Conciliation Court proceeds without disturbing earlier decisions.
Court Disposition
Motion dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Motion dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
10 paragraphs
17 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 293
feel safe in advising the public, and it will create uncertainty and H.C. or A.
confusion. If it was necessary to decide in this case whether the Ratt
decision in the Musicians' Case (1) should be reversed, I would Avsraattan AGRIcUL- TuRar Co.
under the circumstances mentioned follow the rule laid down by my brother Isaacs in this Court on more than one occasion (the latest, I think, on the 18th March this year), and by the Judges of the
. i ae DRIVERS AND Courts of appeal in England, Australia and America in every Freesex's case—namely, to follow the decisions given in their respective Courts Feoay thcelptd
until they are reviewed and reversed by as full a bench as is be
available, called for the purpose of considering the decision. In Powers. Allen Taylor's Case (2) Isaacs J. said :—' Whybrow's Case (3) decided that the power of this Court to interpose by writ of prohibi- tion where a Commonwealth Court is proceeding without jurisdic- tion is given direct by the Constitution as original jurisdiction of the High Court, and there being no authority to Parliament to annul that authority, any attempt to do so necessarily fails. By that decision this Court, unless constituted as a Full Bench, is bound, and so this case must be determined accordingly." That is a well recognized principle in all Courts of appeal. For that reason I do not see my way to consider, at present, whether common law agree- ments to settle disputes are against public policy, or any other question decided by the majority of the Court in that case; or to consider any other question that it is not necessary to decide to enable the Conciliation Court to continue its proceedings. The Conciliation Court can proceed with its work by a decision on the one point we all agree upon, without disturbing any previous decision of this Court. Urgent public need for the reversal of the decision was mentioned. I do not remember hearing of it during the argu- ment. The Conciliation Court is doing a great work, and doing it well, and it is invaluable in cases where people cannot, or will not, settle disputes ; but if disputes can be avoided or settled without reference to the Court at all, it must, I think, be a public benefit instead of a danger. Motion dismissed with costs.
(1) 15 C.L.R., 636. (2) 15 C.L.R., 586, at p. 606. (ChE. 1.
VOL, XVII. 20