Williams v Hursey [1959] HCA 51

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Fullagar, Kitto, Taylor and Menzies JJ. Williams v Hursey [1959] HCA 51

ORDER Williams and Others v. Hursey. Special leave to appeal from judgment of Supreme Court of Tasmania. Strike out of proceedings in Supreme Court of Tasmania and in this Court name of The Hobart Branch of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia. Appeal allowed with costs. Discharge judgment of Supreme Court of Tasmania. In lieu thereof order that action be dismissed with costs. The Hobart Branch of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia and Others v. Hursey and Another. Strike out of proceedings in Supreme Court of Tasmania and in this Court name of The Hobart Branch of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia. Appeal allowed. Order that respondents pay one half of appellants' costs of appeal. Discharge so much of judgment of Supreme Court of Tasmania as declares that plaintiffs are and were at all material times members of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia and so much of said judgment as declares that Port Order No. 38 of 1948 ceased to be in force on commencement of Stevedoring Industry Act 1956. Vary judgment for damages by substituting £1000 for £2500. Winch and Others v. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and Others. Order under s. 40 of Judiciary Act that appeal to Full Court of Supreme Court of Tasmania be removed into this Court. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Sept. 16 Dixon C.J.

I agree in the judgment of Fullagar J.

Fullagar J.

We have before us three matters in which it is sought to challenge judgments of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (Burbury C.J.) in three actions in that Court—No. 1363 of 1957, No. 78 of 1958, and No. 496 of 1958. The three actions were heard together. The matters come before this Court in different ways. In the first case the defendants seek special leave to appeal from the judgment of Burbury C.J. In the second case the defendants appeal as of right from the judgment of Burbury C.J. In the third case the plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of Burbury C.J. to the Full Court of Tasmania, and on a motion for an interlocutory injunction in that appeal it appeared to that Court that a constitutional question of "limits inter se " arose, so that the appeal was automatically removed into this Court by force of s. 40A of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955. It is not clear that such a question arises, and the plaintiffs now ask for an order for removal under s. 40 of that Act, or alternatively for special leave to appeal direct from the judgment of Burbury C.J. Both the first case and the third case are clearly cases proper to be determined by this Court, and I think the best course will be to grant special leave to appeal in the first case, and in the third case to make an order under s. 40 removing the appeal to the Full Court of Tasmania into this Court. It will then be clear that all three cases are properly before us.