Legal Research
Cases
Magrath v Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd

Magrath v Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 26 April 1932 36 min read

Contents

On this page

47 CLR 121

MAGRATH AND ANOTHER

RESPONDENTS,

GOLDSBROUGH, MORT AND COMPANY

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Industrial Arbitration (N.S.W.)-Prohibition-Industrial Commission-Constitution

-Three members necessary to jurisdiction-Reference to Deputy Commissioner- Resignation of member of Industrial Commission--Less than three continuing members of Commission-Suspension of powers of Deputy Commissioner- Industrial Arbitration (Amendment) Act 1926-1930 (N.S.W.) (No. 14 of 1926 --No. 22 of 1930), secs. 3*, 6*-Industrial Arbitration Act 1912-1930 (N.S.W.) (No. 17 of 1912-No. 22 of 1930), sec. 58*.

Held, by Rich, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. (Starke and Evatt JJ. dissenting), that when the number of members of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales fell below the number of three prescribed by sec. 6 of the Industrial Arbitration (Amendment) Act 1926-1930 (N.S.W.) the powers of the Deputy Commissioner were suspended even in matters which had been referred to him while there were three members of the Commission. * The Industrial Arbitration (Amend-

appointed President. The Commission ment) Act 1926-1930 (N.S.W.) provides:

shall be a superior Court of Record, By sec. 3 (1): From and after the

and its seal shall be judicially noted. commencement of this Act the juris-

(4) The Governor may appoint diction and powers of the Court of

a person to be a Deputy Commissioner Industrial Arbitration shall be vested

for such time as the Governor may fix, in and exercised by the Industrial

and such Deputy Commissioner shall Commission established by this Act."

have and exercise the jurisdiction and By sec. 6: (1) There shall be an

powers of the Commission in all matters Industrial Commission of New South

referred to him by the Commission, Wales constituted by the appointment

provided that at the request of any by the Governor of three members,

party he shall, or, of his own motion, one of whom shall be by his commission

he may remit any question arising in

47 CLR 122

Held, also, by Rich, Dixon and McTiernan JJ., that, notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 3 1 of the Industrial Arbitration (Amendment) Act 1926-1930 (N.S.W.) and sec. 58 of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1912-1930 (N.S.W.) a writ of prohibition would lie to restrain the Deputy Commissioner from proceeding in a reference while the Commission was not fully constituted

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) Ex parte Goldsbrough, Mort &Co. Ltd.; Re Magrath, (1931) 32 S.R. (N.S.W.) 338,

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales granting a writ of prohibition directed to Edward Crawford Magrath, William Brotherson and the Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners, restraining them from proceeding with an appli- cation made by the Federated Storemen and Packers' Union of Aus- tralia, New South Wales Branch, industrial union of employees, to the Industrial Commission of New South Wales for a variation of the Storemen and Packers, Wool, &., Stores (State) Award. Edward Crawford Magrath was Deputy Commissioner of the Industrial Commis- sion of New…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Magrath v Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1932] HCA 10
Decision Date: 26 April 1932

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose when Goldsbrough, Mort & Co Ltd sought a writ of prohibition against Edward Crawford Magrath, a Deputy Commissioner of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales, and others. The application for prohibition was based on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed with a matter referred to him by the Industrial Commission, as the Commission itself was not properly constituted.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the powers of a Deputy Commissioner of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales were suspended when the number of members of the Industrial Commission fell below the statutory requirement of three. This question arose because one member of the Commission had resigned, leaving only two members, and the Deputy Commissioner, to whom a matter had been referred prior to the resignation, sought to continue hearing the case. A further issue was whether a writ of prohibition could lie against the Deputy Commissioner in these circumstances.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Rich, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ., held that the powers of the Deputy Commissioner were indeed suspended when the Industrial Commission lacked the requisite three members. Their reasoning was that the Deputy Commissioner's authority was derived from and subordinate to the Commission, and was subject to its control through avenues such as the remission of questions for opinion and direction, and the possibility of appeal. The Court reasoned that these supervisory powers of the Commission were essential to the intended functioning of the Deputy Commissioner's role, and when the Commission's powers were in abeyance due to insufficient membership, the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction must also be suspended. The majority further held that, notwithstanding any provisions that might limit the review of the Commission's proceedings, a writ of prohibition would lie to restrain the Deputy Commissioner from acting without jurisdiction. Starke and Evatt JJ. dissented, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner's powers were not necessarily suspended by a vacancy in the Commission's membership and that the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction was not inherently dependent on the Commission's ability to exercise its supervisory functions.

The appeal was dismissed, with the majority affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that a writ of prohibition should issue.

Orders