R v Murray; Ex parte Proctor [1949] HCA 10

one Fol Dist Cons Foll Foll Cons Re President Ay Appl Rv J-Comp Pty Lid J-CorpPtyLid AAV Naay Tang ee 2 re on ae es reese MnP 998) ioe aa Mie 002 4 (000 ite , ices (elvile f SASR 434 ea genes 120 Too LGERA 20 WAR 72 wu ee Rg BEAR — Manboroucs # nee sorett mel Cons Cons Nay Elomi Plainti 4AIMIA (2002) erecean ee eR ee wealt Commonwvealt (2003) 195, 3 ate @ eke |) (2003) (3003) 211 AG 387 Cons GUL 2009 2 TOFCK >) Commonveulr

4 (2003) 72 AGS ee

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

THE KING

AGAINST

MURRAY AND OTHERS ; Ex Parre PROCTOR AND OTHERS.

Reference Board—Meeting—Quorum—Less than required number of members present—Order—Validity—Prohibition—Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946-1947 (No. 77 of 1946—No. 78 of 1947)—National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations (S.R. 1941 No. 25—1948 No. 45), regs. 12, 13, 17.

Regulation 12 of the National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations provides for the constitution of Local Reference Boards consisting of a chairman and other members representative of employers and employees. Regulation 13 (2) provides that " The Chairman and half the other members of the Board as constituted for the time being in accordance with the provisions of this regulation shall form a quorum and when a quorum is present the Board may validly function notwithstanding that the representatives of one party have failed to attend." Regulation 17 provides that " a dec

ion of a Local Reference Board shall not be challenged appealed against quashed or called in question or be subject to prohibition . . . in any court on any account whatsoever."

Held that reg. 13 (2) made the presence of a quorum a necessary condition of the valid exercise by a Local Reference Board of its functions, and where a Board purported to act in the absence of a quorum prohibition would lie notwithstanding reg. 17 of the regulations.