Baxter v New South Wales Clickers' Association

The appeal concerned a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales refusing to grant a writ of prohibition against the Industrial Court. The appellant, a boot manufacturer, had been convicted in the Industrial Court for breaches of an award by paying apprentices less than the prescribed minimum wage. These proceedings had commenced in the now-defunct Court of Arbitration but were continued in the Industrial Court under the Industrial Disputes Act 1908. The appellant sought prohibition on the grounds that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the apprentices were not employees within the meaning of the relevant legislation and that the award, made after their indentures were signed, could not affect them.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the penalty proceedings concerning the apprentices, and whether the Industrial Disputes Act 1908, particularly section 52, excluded the right to seek prohibition against the Industrial Court for excess of jurisdiction. The appellant contended that the relationship of master and apprentice under the Apprentices Act 1901 was not an industrial matter, and therefore outside the scope of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1901 and its successor, the Industrial Disputes Act 1908. The respondents argued that the Industrial Court's jurisdiction was absolute and unchallengeable by prohibition, regardless of whether it had correctly interpreted the scope of its powers.

A majority of the High Court (Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ.) held that special leave to appeal should be rescinded. Their reasoning was that the question of jurisdiction depended partly on the construction of the specific indentures of apprenticeship and partly on a point of statutory construction that, due to legislative changes, was unlikely to arise again. While they indicated that section 32 of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1901, and by extension section 52 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1908, did not exclude prohibition for excess of jurisdiction, they found that the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant further appeal. Isaacs J., dissenting, held that section 52 excluded prohibition on any ground, provided the Court acted bona fide within its conferred powers.

Consequently, the special leave to appeal previously granted was rescinded.