R v Hibble [1920] HCA 83

R v Hibble [1920] HCA 83

The purported award was invalid as it was not the act of the Special Tribunal but solely of Mr. Hibble, its chairman. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition should issue to restrain Mr. Hibble from further proceeding upon the purported award as a usurpation of authority; the fact that the tribunal is functus officio does not preclude relief so long as the invalid award retains purported effect and no full execution or enforcement has occurred.

Parties
Applicant: The King; Respondent: Charles Hibble; Respondent: Frank Howard Flemming; Respondent: Henry Alfred Mitchell; Respondent: Ivo Clarke; Respondent: James Manners Dixon; Respondent: John Marcus Baddeley; Respondent: Albert Villis; Respondent: Albert Edward Phillips; Respondent: John Michael Walker; Respondent: Australasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation; Prosecutor/applicant: The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1920
Procedural Posture
Application for Prohibition (and Alternative Certiorari) / Full Court Hearing and Determination of an Order Nisi
Outcome
Order absolute for prohibition against Charles Hibble; no order against other tribunal members. Alternative motion not dealt with.
Legal Topics
Prohibition, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Industrial Awards, Functus Officio, Enforcement of Awards
Administrative Law Industrial Law Constitutional Law Prohibition Jurisdiction of Tribunals Industrial Awards Functus Officio Enforcement of Awards

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Applicant

Charles Hibble

Respondent

Frank Howard Flemming

Respondent

Henry Alfred Mitchell

Respondent

Ivo Clarke

Respondent

James Manners Dixon

Respondent

John Marcus Baddeley

Respondent

Albert Villis

Respondent

Albert Edward Phillips

Respondent

John Michael Walker

Respondent

Australasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation

Respondent

The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited

Prosecutor/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Prohibition (and Alternative Certiorari) / Full Court Hearing and Determination of an Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a writ of prohibition may lie to restrain a special tribunal or its chairman after the making of an industrial award allegedly made without jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the purported award was valid, being made by the chairman alone rather than the special tribunal as constituted.
  3. 3 Whether the court can grant prohibition if nothing further is to be done by the tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The purported award was invalid as it was not the act of the Special Tribunal but solely of Mr. Hibble, its chairman. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition should issue to restrain Mr. Hibble from further proceeding upon the purported award as a usurpation of authority; the fact that the tribunal is functus officio does not preclude relief so long as the invalid award retains purported effect and no full execution or enforcement has occurred.

Court Disposition

Order absolute for prohibition against Charles Hibble; no order against other tribunal members. Alternative motion not dealt with.

Orders

  • Writ of prohibition to issue against Charles Hibble, restraining him from further proceeding on the purported award of 15th October 1920.
  • No order as to costs.