R v Mahony [1931] HCA 36

46 C.L.R.) OF AUSTRALIA. 131

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

THE KING

AGAINST MAHONY Cake ate Gs ? 3 . RESPONDENT ; Ex parte JOHNSON... ' é . Prosecutor.

Transport Workers—Waterside worker—Licence—Issue of licence—Renewal of HC, ov A. licence—Refusal to renew or issue new licence—Mandamus—T'ranaport Workers 1931. Act 1928-1929 (No. 37 of 1928—No. 3 of 1929), seca. 6, 7, 9.

On an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the licensing officer "#0

under the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929 to issue a licence to the applicant, Held, by Rich and Dizon JJ. : There is no discretion in the licensing officer under the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929 to refuse to renew a licence to a

Dixon, Evatt: waterside worker under that Act, and an applicant is entitled under sec. 9 (2) ssl Metiernan

'of the Act to a renewal of his licence, even if the licensing officer may have ' wide discretion in granting a primary licence ;

By Starke J,: There is no difference between the discretionary power of the licensing officer to issue licence and his power to renew a licence, and the rule nisi should be absolute to the licensing officer to consider and determine the prosecutor's application for a licence according to law;

By Evatt and McTiernan JJ.: The licensing officer has no discretion to refuse either the grant or the renewal of a licence.

Held by the Court, accordingly, that the order nisi for a mandamus should be made absolute.

'OrveR Nist for mandamus.

Henry Francis Mahony was appointed as licensing officer for the ports of Townsville and Lucinda in Queensland under the provisions of the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929, and Martin Haren was" appointed as issuing officer at Halifax, near Lucinda, in the State

H. ©. or A. 1931. Ww

Tue Kise

®

Manony ;

EX PARTE

JouNsoN.

HIGH COURT (1931,

of Queensland. Cholmondeley Newham Godschall Johnson had