High Court of Australia

About
Contact
Copyright & Usage
Privacy
Disclaimers
Feedback
Help

All Databases
Cases & Legislation
Journals & Scholarship
Law Reform
Treaties
Libraries
Communities
LawCite

Australia
CTH
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
New Zealand

Specific Year
Any

R v Holmes; Ex parte Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows In Victoria [1980] HCA 46; (1980) 147 CLR 65 (2 December 1980)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE QUEEN v. HOLMES; Ex parte MANCHESTER UNITY INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODDFELLOWS IN VICTORIA [1980] HCA 46; (1980) 147 CLR 65

Industrial Law (Cth)

High Court of Australia

Stephen(1), Mason(2), Murphy(3), Aickin(4) and Wilson(5) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law (Cth) - Conciliation and Arbitration - Industrial dispute - Demand by union on behalf of clerks employed by friendly societies in relation to hospital and medical benefit funds - Whether operation of funds insurance business - The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxv.).

HEARING

1980, August 7; December 2. 2:12:1980

PROHIBITION.

DECISION

December 2.

The following written judgments were delivered: -

STEPHEN J. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of application. (at p67)

MASON J. This is an application for an order nisi for prohibition which has been referred by Aickin J. to a Full Bench. The applicant is a friendly society. It seeks a writ of prohibition directed to Commissioner Holmes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and The Federated Clerks Union of Australia ("the Clerks Union"), restraining them from proceeding further on a finding of an industrial dispute arising out of the non-acceptance by a number of parties on whom a log of claims was served by the Clerks Union. Among the respondents who did not accept the log of claims were twenty-nine friendly societies, including the applicant. The log of claims related to the terms and conditions of employment of clerks employed by the respondents in health fund activities. The log of claims sought the making of an award described as the Clerical Officers' (Health Funds Industry) Award, 1975. (at p67)

2. In February 1975 the Clerks Union served the log of claims. On 11 April 1975 Commissioner Paine found that there was an industrial dispute. On 28 May 1975 The Australian Insurance Employees' Union ("the Insurance Union") served a log of claims on a number of employers, seeking an award entitled Insurance Officers (Clerical Indoor Staffs) Award, 1975. The respondents to the log comprised employers a number of whom carried out similar functions to those served by the Clerks Union. The log was not accepted by the employers and on 28 August 1975 Commissioner Paine made a finding that an industrial dispute also existed in this matter. (at p67)

3. Both matters came on for hearing before Commissioner Holmes on 24 August 1976 when…

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.

Continue reading R v Holmes; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Holmes; Ex parte [1980] HCA 46
Case: [1980] HCA 46
Decision Date: 2 December 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Holmes; Ex parte* concerned an application for a writ of prohibition brought by the applicant, Mr. Holmes, against the respondent, the Commonwealth. Mr. Holmes sought to prevent the Commonwealth from proceeding with a prosecution against him in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the validity of the prosecution, which Mr. Holmes contended was an abuse of process.

The primary legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the Commonwealth's institution and continuation of criminal proceedings against Mr. Holmes constituted an abuse of process, thereby warranting the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. This required the Court to consider the circumstances under which a court may intervene to prevent a prosecution that, while technically lawful, is brought for an improper purpose or in a manner that is vexatious or oppressive.

The High Court held that the power to grant prohibition in cases of abuse of process should be exercised with caution. It found that the Commonwealth's actions, while potentially subject to criticism, did not reach the threshold of an abuse of process that would justify prohibition. The Court reasoned that the prosecution was based on a legitimate interpretation of the relevant legislation and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proceedings were instituted or continued for an ulterior motive or in a manner that was fundamentally unfair or oppressive. The Court emphasised that the ordinary course of criminal proceedings should generally be allowed to run their course, with any alleged impropriety to be dealt with by the trial court.

The application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Orders