R v Murray and Cormie; Ex parte the Commonwealth

The High Court of Australia heard an application for an order of prohibition. The Commonwealth sought to prohibit a judge of the District Court of New South Wales from further proceeding with an order made in a workmen's compensation matter. The District Court judge had determined the compensation payable to dependants of a deceased Commonwealth employee and had also made directions regarding the investment and application of those funds, including provisions for future variation. The Commonwealth contended that these directions, particularly those concerning investment and future variation, constituted an excess of jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the High Court possessed original jurisdiction under section 75 of the Constitution to issue a writ of prohibition against a State Court judge exercising federal jurisdiction. Secondly, the Court considered whether a judge of an inferior State Court exercising federal jurisdiction could be considered an "officer of the Commonwealth" for the purposes of section 75(v) of the Constitution, which grants the High Court jurisdiction in matters involving writs of mandamus or prohibition against such officers.

A majority of the High Court (Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, and Rich JJ.) held that the Commonwealth was not a "party" to the prohibition proceedings within the meaning of section 75(III) of the Constitution, as it lacked a suitor's interest in the subject matter of the excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court lacked jurisdiction under section 75(III) to make absolute the order nisi for prohibition. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. dissented on this point, arguing that the Commonwealth, as a party aggrieved by an excess of jurisdiction, could invoke the judicial power of the Commonwealth to restrain it. The majority also held that a judge of an inferior State Court exercising federal jurisdiction is not an "officer of the Commonwealth" for the purposes of section 75(v). Griffith C.J. and Barton J. dissented on this point, considering such a judge to be an officer of the Commonwealth for these purposes.

The Court also considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal from the District Court's decision. A majority of the Court (Griffith C.J., Barton, Isaacs, Higgins, and Powers JJ.) held that clause 2 of the Second Schedule to the Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act 1912, which makes the decision of a County Court final unless appealed within a prescribed time, constitutes an exception to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under section 73 of the Constitution. As no appeal had been brought within the prescribed time, the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal.