Harrison v Goodland

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by Edward Scott Harrison against his conviction for breaching an order of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Harrison, a boilermaker employed by Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. and a member of the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, had been ordered by the Commonwealth Court to comply with a term of the Metal Trades Award, specifically to make templates when directed by his employer. He was convicted for refusing such a direction. Harrison sought to challenge the validity of the Commonwealth Court's order during his appeal to the High Court, relying on an exception in Section 31 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1934, which generally prohibits challenging such orders in courts other than the High Court.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the exception in Section 31 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act permitted the appellant to challenge the validity of the Commonwealth Court's order in an appeal against a conviction for its breach. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the order of the Commonwealth Court, which interpreted the Metal Trades Award and mandated compliance with its terms, was binding on Harrison, who was a member of the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, an organisation that was a party to the proceedings in which the order was made.

The Court reasoned that the exception in Section 31 of the Act, which allows challenges to orders of the Commonwealth Court only in the High Court, did not extend to permitting a challenge to the validity of a subsisting order within an appeal against a conviction for its breach. While the High Court could generally review such orders, this was not the appropriate avenue for such a challenge. Furthermore, the Court held that the order of the Commonwealth Court did apply to Harrison. Latham C.J. and Starke J. found that Harrison, as a member of the Boilermakers' Society, was represented in the proceedings and therefore bound by the order. Dixon J. concluded that any contention that Harrison was not bound by the order was inconsistent with its terms and therefore constituted a challenge to its validity, which was impermissible in these proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The order nisi for prohibition was discharged, with costs awarded to the respondent.