Graziers' Association of New South Wales v Durkin

The Graziers' Association of New South Wales applied to the High Court for a writ of attachment against the respondent, Durkin, for alleged disobedience of an injunction granted under section 48 of the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1928*. The injunction, originally made in 1922, was intended to restrain Durkin from counselling, taking part in, or encouraging strikes in the pastoral industry. The Association contended that Durkin's actions, including addressing meetings and encouraging shearers to refuse to work under a recently varied award, constituted a breach of this injunction.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether disobedience of an injunction granted under section 48 of the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act* could be punished by attachment for contempt, or if the remedies were limited to those expressly provided within the section itself. The respondent argued that section 48 prescribed the exclusive penalties for contravention, namely a fine or imprisonment, and that attachment was therefore not available. The applicant contended that the Court possessed inherent power to punish contempt of its orders, and that the penalties in section 48 did not exclude this power.

The Court held that the remedies for disobedience of an order made under section 48 of the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act* are limited to those specified in the section itself. The Court reasoned that the phrase "under pain of fine or imprisonment" in section 48, read in conjunction with the penalty clause at the end of the section and relevant provisions of the *Acts Interpretation Act*, indicated that any contravention of an order made under section 48 was an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or imprisonment not exceeding three months. The Court applied the principle that where a statute provides a specific remedy for non-compliance, that remedy must be followed, and no other is implied. The Court found that the historical development of section 48 did not suggest an intention to allow for cumulative penalties or to make attachment an alternative remedy.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the application for a writ of attachment was misconceived. The motion was dismissed with costs.