R v Owens and Farrington

The applicant, Alfred Joseph Seaton, sought a writ of prohibition from the High Court of Australia to restrain further proceedings upon his conviction by a magistrate for breaches of a Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act award. Seaton, the licensee of Larkin's Hotel, had been charged as a successor, assignee, or transmittee of a business bound by the award. The magistrate had amended the informations to substitute the name of Sharpe for Grimsley, and convicted Seaton on the basis that the licence had been transferred through successive persons to him, binding him to the award. An order nisi for prohibition was granted by a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, returnable before the Full Court of the High Court.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the order nisi for prohibition had been validly obtained and whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the procedure adopted by the applicant, in obtaining an order nisi from a State Supreme Court Judge rather than a High Court Justice, was correct. Further, the Court considered whether it possessed the power to extend the time for appeal if the original appeal was out of time, and whether the facts presented warranted the granting of special leave to appeal, particularly concerning the interpretation of section 29(ba) of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the evidence of Seaton being a successor bound by the award.

The High Court found that the applicant's procedural steps were incorrect. Relying on precedent, the Court held that a Judge of a State Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to grant an order nisi for prohibition returnable before the High Court. The Court also affirmed its previous decisions that it had no power to extend the time for appeal once the statutory period had expired. Regarding the application for special leave to appeal, the Court determined that the facts did not clearly raise the intended point of law, and in light of an undertaking given by the respondent regarding other charges, special leave was not warranted.

Consequently, the High Court refused special leave to appeal and struck out the appeal with costs.