No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
(1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337. High Court of Australia; Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ.
2 S. 30 provides, inter alia —
… the High Court shall have original jurisdiction—
(a) in all matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation;
…
3 Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board v. Federated Seamen's Union of Australasia (1925) 36 C.L.R. 442, 450 per Isaacs J.; Miller v. Haweis (1907) 5 C.L.R. 89.
4 The King v. Bevan; Ex parte Elias and Gordon (1942) 66 C.L.R. 452, 465.
5 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337, 341.
6 S. 75 provides, inter alia—
all matters—
…
(v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
7 (1916) 22 C.L.R. 437.
8 S. 29C (1.) of the Act vests the District Court with federal jurisdiction.
9 The High Court in the past has been willing to grant prohibition until all possibility of action under the challenged order has ceased: The King v. Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and the Australian Builders‘ Labourers’ Federation ; Ex parte Jones (1914) 18 C.L.R. 224; The King v. Hickman; Ex parte Fox (1945) 70 C.L.R. 598, 619 in which Dixon J. followed dicta in The King v. Hibble; Ex parte Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd (1920) 28 C.L.R. 456.
10 Windeyer J. quotes as authority for this, Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd v. Singapore Improvement Trust [1937] A.C. 898; The King v. Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 C.L.R. 407; The Queen v. Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co. Pty Ltd (1953) 88 C.L.R. 100; (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337, 341. Other authorities are Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Willan (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 417; Ex parte Wurth; Re Tully (1955) 55 S.R. (N.S.W.) 47.
11 The King v. Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 C.L.R. 407; Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd v. Singapore Improvement Trust [1937] A.C. 898; Australasian Scale Co. Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxes (Queensland) (1935) 53 C.L.R. 534, 555 per Rich and Dixon JJ.
12 (1944) 69 C.L.R. 407, 432.
13 (1953) 88 C.L.R. 100.
14 Ibid. 120 per Dixon C.J., Williams, Webb and Fullagar JJ.
15 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337 per Taylor and Windeyer JJ.; also Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 Q.B. 32.
16 S. 29A.
17 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337, 343.
18 Ibid.
19 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337 per Barwick C.J., McTiernan and Windeyer JJ.; same principle applied in Farmer v. Cotton's Trustees [1915] A.C. 922; Hayes v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 96 C.L.R. 47; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150.
20 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150.
21 Jaffe, , ‘Judicial Review: Question of Law’ (1955) 69 Harvard Law Review 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337, 342 per Windeyer J.; same principle applied in Baldwin and Francis Ltd v. Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] A.C. 663; The Queen v. Medical Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Gilmore [1957] 1 Q.B. 574; Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw [1952] 1 K.B. 338.
23 [1952] 1 K.B. 338.
24 In Baldwin and Francis Ltd v. Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] A.C. 663.
25 The Court in the present case assumed the record included a transcript of the oral judgment given in the court below and the reasons for it.
26 [1956] A.C. 14.
27 Ibid. 29; 36 per Lord Radcliffe; the decision was applied in Griffiths v. J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd [1963] A.C. 1.
28 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337, 340-341.
29 Whitmore, , ‘O! That Way Madness Lies: Judicial Review for Error of Law’ (1967) 2 Federal Law Review 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.