Re McJannet; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union of Employees (Qld) (No 2)

The High Court of Australia considered an application for prohibition brought by the Australian Workers' Union of Employees (Qld) (the prosecutors) against the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (the respondent). The dispute arose from the respondent's alleged assumption of jurisdiction by the Federal Court in proceedings concerning the prosecutors, where the respondent was said to have acted without lawful authority. The prosecutors sought an order absolute for prohibition pursuant to section 75(v) of the Constitution.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether, notwithstanding the making of an order absolute for prohibition due to the Federal Court's lack of jurisdiction, the High Court was nonetheless required to refuse to make an order as to costs by reason of section 347(1) of the *Industrial Relations Act 1988* (Cth). This provision generally prohibits orders for costs in proceedings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or the Federal Court in relation to matters arising under that Act, unless certain conditions are met. The High Court had to determine if the enforcement of the duty not to assume absent jurisdiction constituted the enforcement of a right or duty created or conferred by the *Industrial Relations Act*.

The Court reasoned that section 75(v) of the Constitution confers original jurisdiction on the High Court to issue writs of prohibition, and this jurisdiction is not limited or abrogated by the *Industrial Relations Act*. The prohibition sought was to prevent the Federal Court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction, a matter of constitutional significance. The Court held that the enforcement of the constitutional writ of prohibition was not an enforcement of a right or duty created or conferred by the *Industrial Relations Act* in the sense contemplated by section 347(1). Therefore, section 347(1) did not preclude the High Court from making an order for costs.

The High Court made orders that the respondent, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, pay the prosecutors' costs of and incidental to the application for prohibition, and also pay the prosecutors' costs of the argument on costs in the High Court.