R v Bain; Ex parte Cadbury Schweppes Australia Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an application for prohibition by Cadbury Schweppes Australia Ltd against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had refused to grant an order nisi to review a decision of a magistrate. The dispute concerned the prosecution of R v Bain for alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Cadbury Schweppes sought to prohibit the Supreme Court from proceeding with the review, arguing that the magistrate's decision was final and not subject to review.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had jurisdiction to grant an order nisi to review the magistrate's decision. This involved determining whether the magistrate's decision was a "judgment" or "order" within the meaning of the relevant Supreme Court rules and whether the Trade Practices Act, by providing for appeals to the Federal Court, implicitly excluded review by state Supreme Courts.

The High Court held that the magistrate's decision was not a judgment or order in the sense contemplated by the Supreme Court rules for the purpose of an order nisi. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the Trade Practices Act did not exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria over inferior courts within its territory. The Court emphasised the distinction between the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The High Court made absolute the order nisi for prohibition, quashing the order nisi granted by the Supreme Court of Victoria.