Seamen's Union of Australia v Matthews

The Seamen's Union of Australia appealed to the Full Court of the High Court of Australia from a decision of McTiernan J. The Union sought a writ of prohibition against the Commonwealth Industrial Court and its judges, as well as against Leonard George Matthews, to restrain proceedings on informations laid by Matthews alleging contempt of court. The Union's primary contention was that the Commonwealth Industrial Court was invalidly established due to the alleged conferral of both judicial and non-judicial powers, thereby offending the separation of powers doctrine established in *R. v. Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia*.

The legal issue before the Full Court was whether the Commonwealth Industrial Court was validly established under the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956* and, if not, whether the proceedings for contempt were lawful. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Act conferred non-judicial powers on the Court, and if so, whether these provisions were severable from the provisions that validly conferred judicial power, thus preserving the Court's constitutional validity. The Union argued that the Act created a body with a "conglomerate mass of powers" where neither judicial nor non-judicial elements predominated, and that the legislature had not sufficiently indicated which powers were paramount.

The Full Court affirmed the decision of McTiernan J., holding that the Commonwealth Industrial Court was validly established pursuant to sections 71 and 72 of the Constitution and was validly invested with jurisdiction forming part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The Court reasoned that the legislative scheme clearly intended to establish the Court as a federal court for the exercise of judicial power, citing specific sections of the Act that conferred such power. While acknowledging that some provisions might confer powers outside the scope of federal judicial power, the Court held that such provisions would be severable. The Court found that the Act, particularly in light of the *Boilermakers' Case*, demonstrated a clear intention to create a court for the judicial enforcement of the Act and awards, and that any non-judicial powers conferred were incidental and severable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.