Cockle v Isaksen [1957] HCA 85

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Cockle v Isaksen [1957] HCA 85

ORDER Appeals struck out as incompetent.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Dec. 3 Dixon C.J., McTiernan and Kitto JJ.

The proceedings before us consist of four appeals by an informant against the dismissal of four respective informations laid by him for offences against s. 138 (1) (a) (iii) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956. They were dismissed by a stipendiary magistrate forming a Court of Petty Sessions at Sydney. The decision dismissing the informations was based, so we were told, on an interpretation of the provision adopted by the magistrate from a statement made by Dixon C.J. which is reported in the Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v. The Commonwealth [1] . While the appellant proposed to support the appeal on the ground that the interpretation was erroneous, the respondents, it seemed, would attack the validity of the provision.

1. (1954) 90 C.L.R., at p. 37.

The informations were doubtless brought before the Court of Petty Sessions on the footing that s. 138 imposes pecuniary penalties which, by reason of s. 44 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1950 may, unless a contrary intention appears, be recovered in a court of summary jurisdiction as defined by s. 26 (d) of that Act and that no contrary intention appears in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956, s. 191 of the latter Act being construed not as appointing the method of enforcing penal sanctions but as providing an alternative proceeding before the Commonwealth Industrial Court. On this footing s. 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 was treated as applying and, by par. (b) of sub-s. (2), as operating to give the informant an appeal as of right to this Court.