Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty ltd v Whyte

The case of *Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellants, Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd and two individuals, were charged with breaches of the *Factories and Shops Act 1928* (Vic.). The dispute arose from the alleged employment of two individuals, Papas and Zorich, at a rate lower than that determined by a wages board. The core of the legal challenge was whether the informations were laid within the statutory time limit and whether the summonses had been validly extended, thereby affecting the jurisdiction of the justices.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the requirement under section 229(a) of the *Factories and Shops Act 1928* that an information be laid within two months of the commission of an offence was a jurisdictional prerequisite, such that a failure to comply would oust the jurisdiction of the justices. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the purported extension of the return dates of the summonses, which were not made upon oath or affidavit as required by section 23(3) of the *Justices Act 1928* (Vic.), rendered the summonses invalid and deprived the justices of jurisdiction.

The court held that the justices had jurisdiction to determine whether an information was laid within the statutory period. An erroneous decision on this point did not oust their jurisdiction, and therefore, prohibition would not lie. This principle was applied to both cases. Regarding the summonses, the court found that in the case concerning Papas, where the defendants appeared and pleaded without objection to jurisdiction, any irregularity in the extension of the summons did not affect the justices' jurisdiction. However, in the case concerning Zorich, where the defendants did not appear but objected to jurisdiction through their counsel, the majority of the court (with Latham C.J. dissenting) found that the irregular extension of the summons meant the justices were not properly seised of the matter, and prohibition should issue. The decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria was affirmed in part and overturned in part.