Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

868 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART 1V by all the four justices by whom the case was heard. The point for the Employés’ Federation was put in two ways. In the first place, it was argued that a prohibition was within the language of s. 31 of the Act of 1904, which enacted that ‘no award of the Court shall be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any other Court on any account whatsoever’. Or as it was also put under the Constitution, s. 73, an appeal lay to the High Court from every Federal Court unless otherwise enacted by Parliament, and as an appeal had been denied by s. 31, the jurisdiction of the Court was thus denied on any question which could be raised by appeal. To this argument Grif- fith C.J. pointed out as a complete answer that in the first place in Clancy’s case? the Court had decided on identical words in the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act, 1901, that the enactment did not apply to cases in which an inferior Court had exceeded its jurisdiction, and in the second place, even if no appeal lay to the prohibiting Court it did not follow that enforcement of the judgement might not be prohibited by a Court having jurisdiction to make an order, and in the great majority of cases of prohibition the prohibiting Court was not a Court of Appeal from the Court prohibited. The other ground of objection was that the Court had no original jurisdiction to grant prohibition to an inferior Federal Court. To this the answer was—according to the Chief Justice—that s. 75 (v) conferred original jurisdiction upon the High Court in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or injunction was sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. Prohibition did not lie except to persons exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and it could not be denied that the judge of the Arbitration Court was an officer of the Commonwealth or that his functions were judicial. Even if the words of s. 75 were ambiguous, the necessity of such controlling power was so apparent that the ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the power. But in any case the Court clearly had jurisdiction under “11 C. Le R. 1, at pp. 20 seq. *1C L. BR. 151.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation