Legal Research
Cases
R v Hickman; ex parte Fox and Clinton

R v Hickman; ex parte Fox and Clinton

Link copied

Case Copied 5 September 1945 45 min read

Contents

On this page

HICKMAN AND OTHERS; Ex PARTE

HICKMAN AND OTHERS Ex PARTE CLINTON AND OTHERS. National Security-Coal mining industry--Local Reference Board-Ambit of juris-

diction- Validity of order-Order based on erroneous finding that matter within coal mining industry-Provisions prohibiting appeals, &.-ProhibitionThe Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), 8. 75 (v.)-National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations (S.R. 1941 No. 25-1944 No. 48), regs. 2, Sept. 5.

Regulation 2 of the National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations provides that the Regulations shall apply to industrial matters relating to the Coal Mining Industry." Regulation 14 (1) (a) provides that, subject to the Regulations, a Local Reference Board shall have power to settle disputes as to any local matter likely to affect the amicable relations of employers and employees in the coal mining industry. By reg. 4 dispute" and

local matter' are also associated with the coal mining industry. Regulation 17 provides that the decision of a Local Reference Board shall not be chal- lenged, appealed against, quashed or called into question, or be subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction, in any court on any account whatever."

Held that under the Regulations the authority of a Local Reference Board is limited to the coal mining industry. Prohibition lies, under S. 75 (v.) of the Constitution, in respect of a decision of a Board based on an erroneous finding that the matter was within the ambit of that industry.

Effect of provisions of the general nature of reg. 17 considered.

70 CLR 599

ORDERS NISI for prohibition.

Ex parte Fox and Another.-An application was made to the High Court by Stanley Fox and his wife Millicent Daisy Fox, hereinafter referred to as the prosecutors, who carry on business in partnership under the firm name of S. &M. Fox at Chullora, New South Wales, as haulage contractors, automotive engineers, builders and joiners, for a writ of prohibition directed to Frederick Charles Hickman, chairman, and William Leslie Rodgers, Henry Charles Morton and T. Herron, members of a Local (Mechanics) Reference Board (Southern District, New South Wales), constituted under the National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations, and the Federated Mining Mechanics Association of Australasia (New South Wales Branch), prohibiting them and each of them from proceeding further upon an order made on 1st May 1945 by the Board.

The Board's order was made under reg. 14 (1) (a) upon an applica- tion made on behalf of the Federated Mining Mechanics Association of Australasia (New South Wales Branch), an industrial union of employees, for the determination of a dispute existing in respect to the application of the award known as the consolidated Mechanics Award," C.R.B.251, to members of the Association employed as lorry drivers. The order was in the following terms :-" The

doth hereby decide that S. and M. Fox are engaged in the coal mining industry and that they are required subject to the awards to grant to their employees engaged and employed as lorry drivers the minimum rates of wage and the work-…

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 R v Hickman; ex parte Fox and Clinton 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: [1945] HCA 53
Decision Date: 5 September 1945

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *R v Hickman; ex parte Fox and Clinton*, the High Court of Australia considered applications for writs of prohibition. The applicants, S. & M. Fox and Clinton Coal Carrying Co., sought to prevent a Local Reference Board, constituted under the National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations, from proceeding with orders that declared them to be engaged in the coal mining industry and thus subject to specific awards. The Federated Mining Mechanics Association of Australasia was the respondent in both matters.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Local Reference Board had acted within its jurisdiction when it determined that the applicant companies and their employees were engaged in the coal mining industry. The Regulations stipulated that the Board's authority was limited to industrial matters relating to the coal mining industry. The applicants contended that their businesses, primarily haulage and transport contracting, were distinct from the coal mining industry, even though they transported coal. A further issue was the effect of Regulation 17, which purported to prevent any challenge or questioning of a Board's decision in any court.

The Court reasoned that the jurisdiction of a Local Reference Board was expressly confined to the coal mining industry by the Regulations. It held that an authority with limited jurisdiction cannot grant itself jurisdiction by an erroneous finding of fact or a misinterpretation of the law upon which its jurisdiction depends, unless a specific provision grants it the power to act on its own opinion. The Court found that the applicants, as haulage contractors who transported various materials including coal, were engaged in the transport industry, not the coal mining industry. The mere act of carrying coal from a colliery did not, in the circumstances, place them within the coal mining industry. The Court also affirmed that Regulation 17, which sought to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, could not override the constitutional power of the High Court under Section 75(v) of the Constitution to issue writs of prohibition against officers of the Commonwealth acting in excess of their authority.

Consequently, the High Court made absolute the orders nisi for prohibition, finding that the Local Reference Board had acted without jurisdiction in determining that the applicants were engaged in the coal mining industry. The decisions of the Board were therefore quashed.

Orders