Peck v Adelaide Steamship Company Limited

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a prosecution brought by Walter Peck, secretary of the Australasian Institute of Marine Engineers, against the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited. The company had been convicted by a stipendiary magistrate for breaching an award under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1911 by failing to pay overtime to a chief engineer, J. A. Robertson. The company obtained an order nisi for prohibition from the Supreme Court, arguing that the magistrate erred in finding that the company was Robertson's employer.

The central legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, the Court had to determine the scope of the Supreme Court's power to grant a prohibition under sections 112 and 115 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) in cases where the finding of fact by the justices was challenged. Secondly, the Court was required to ascertain whether, on the facts presented, the relationship of employer and employee existed between the Adelaide Steamship Company and J. A. Robertson, thereby rendering the company liable for the overtime payments under the relevant award.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Griffith CJ, Barton and Gavan Duffy JJ, held that the Supreme Court had the power to grant a prohibition if the finding of fact by the justices was one that no reasonable person could arrive at based on the evidence. They reasoned that the charter-party agreement between the shipowners and the Adelaide Steamship Company established that the owners were responsible for providing and paying the crew, including the engineers. While the company appointed an "exempt master" and paid his wages, this did not alter the fundamental employment relationship, which remained with the shipowners. There was no evidence that the master was held out as an agent of the company for the purpose of employing engineers. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no evidence upon which the company could properly be convicted of employing Robertson.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had made absolute the order nisi for prohibition. The majority found that the engineer was an employee of the ship's owners, not the chartering company, and that the evidence did not support a finding to the contrary.