R v Deputy Industrial Registrar of Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, New South Wales Registry

This case involved an application for a writ of prohibition directed to the Deputy Industrial Registrar of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The applicants, a group of theatre companies including J. C. Williamson, Limited, sought to prevent the Deputy Industrial Registrar from proceeding with an application by the Australian Actors' Union to be registered as an organisation under the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1909*. The core of the dispute was the applicants' contention that actors were not engaged in an "industry" as contemplated by the Act and the Constitution, and therefore the Union was incapable of being registered.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Deputy Industrial Registrar possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the application for registration, and consequently, whether prohibition was an appropriate remedy. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Registrar had the authority to inquire into and decide whether the Australian Actors' Union was an association entitled to registration, given the applicants' argument that acting did not constitute an industry.

The Court held that prohibition would not lie. Applying the principle that prohibition is only available where a tribunal lacks jurisdiction to make an order under any circumstances, the Court reasoned that the Registrar had the authority to inquire into the eligibility of an association for registration. The Registrar's duty, under the Act and associated regulations, included determining whether the applicants met the prescribed conditions and were capable of registration. If the Registrar erroneously decided that an association was entitled to registration when it was not, this constituted an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, not an excess of jurisdiction. The Court noted that an appeal lay from the Registrar's decision to the President of the Court, and ultimately to the High Court, providing a mechanism for correcting any errors.

Consequently, the order nisi for prohibition was discharged with costs awarded to the respondent association.