HOWARD SMITH LIMITED & ORS. V. THE STEVEDORING INDUSTRY COMMISSION & ORS. 4/1948

Mot NTT NAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

v.

THE STEVEDORING INDUSTRY COMMISSION

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered aMelbourne April,1948. _

WL, Daw, Gor. Print, Mets, on Monday, 5th.

0.12980/45

abi St ma

& ORS.

ITH

LOW,

Al cal Fo!

'RY CO)

r

JUDGMENT.

HOWARD SMITH LIMITED & ORS.

Ve THE STEVEDORING INDUSTRY COMMISS LON f &_ ORS. JUDGMENT. RICH J. \

In this case I assume that I have jurisdiction under sec. 75(v) of the Constitution to grant an injunction on the footing that the members of the Committee are officers of the Commonwealth pro hac vice, although it is true that counsel for the plaintiffs placed the jurisdiction on a more dubious ground and contended that '' sec. 75(iii) applied.

The application is for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing or in any way giving effect to the deter- mination or direction made on the 18th December 1947 by the Commission that the driving and management of motor lorries used for the purpose of conveying certain goods unloaded from the vessels into such lorries from the ship's side on the wharf to dumps in the wharf yard was waterside workers' work and should only be performed by registered waterside workers, and from enforcing or in any way giving effect to the determination or direction to the same effect given by the Waterside Employment Committee for the port of Brisbane on 12th February 1948 and from applying or extending the said determination or direction to the conveying of goods unloaded from vessels in the port of Brisbane or other ports.

It seems somewhat doubtful whether the Committee has made a decision. But assuming it has made a decision, the decision is one which under tt eo which can be decided, not only by the Commission on apped, but by any court in which it is sought to enforce the decision. It is a decision made under an assignment or delegation from the Commission. It obtains