Seamen's Union of Australia v Matthews [1957] HCA 53

High Court of Australia McTiernan J. Dixon C.J. Williams, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Seamen's Union of Australia v Matthews

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 23 McTiernan J . delivered the following judgment:—

Mr. Gowans moves on behalf of the Seamen's Union of Australia for an order nisi directed to the judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court and Leonard George Matthews with a view to obtaining a writ of prohibition under s. 75 (v.) of the Constitution. The order nisi for which counsel moves would call in question the validity of the Commonwealth Industrial Court; in the alternative it would call in question the jurisdiction of that court to proceed upon nine informations which Matthews laid against the union for contempt of court. The union contends that he had no locus standi to lay any of them.

The Commonwealth Industrial Court heard the nine informations together. On 24th May 1957 it found the union guilty upon all of the informations, imposed penalties in three cases and ordered the union to pay the costs of all the informations.

Every contempt of which the court found the union guilty was of the nature of disobedience by it to an order which had been made pursuant either to cl. (a) or (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 109 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956.

Both of these orders were made at the instance of the Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association which desired to enforce cl. 38 of the Seamen's Award 1955—a prohibition of certain strikes and other practices which would cause interference with work. The union and the association, respectively, are registered pursuant to the Act and each of these organisations and its members are bound by the award.

The locus standi of Matthews as informant appears to have rested upon an authority which the Steamship Owners' Association had given him. I am clearly of the opinion that the question whether the locus standi of Matthews was satisfactory is merely a question of procedure. The Commonwealth Industrial Court being a superior court of record, it was within its province while exercising the jurisdiction defined in s. 111 of the Act to pass upon the locus standi of Matthews. The union's objection to the locus standi of Matthews raises no point upon which it could possibly obtain a writ of prohibition. Mr. Gowans did not argue this ground of the application. However, it was not formally abandoned. In my opinion, it must be rejected as being beyond the scope of prohibition.