//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1951] HCA 22
High Court of Australia
1951-07-01
Kitto JJ, Williams J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant claims a writ of prohibition in respect of two orders of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. By each of these orders the applicant is found guilty of a contempt of that Court and sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment. The sentences are made concurrent. The orders were made on 1st March 1951 and the applicant is detained in gaol under the authority of the two orders.
The ground of the present application is that each order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The summons upon which each order was made professes to charge the applicant with contempt of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and each order professes to find him guilty of that offence. The ground upon which the applicant challenges the jurisdiction of the Court is that the matters which the Court found to be contempt of the Court are not within the legal definition of the offence. The respondents to the motion joined issue with the applicant upon that ground and were content that the decision of the question raised by it should determine the result of this application. They raise no point whether the ground relied upon by the applicant is a good ground for prohibition.
What the Court found to be contempt of court were two publications, for which the applicant was responsible, of statements impugning the integrity of a judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and accusing him of improper conduct in connection with a matter within his jurisdiction as a judge of the Court. The jurisdiction of the judge is a combination of judicial and arbitral powers. It is urged for the applicant that the matter fell within his arbitral powers and this is a sufficient consideration upon which to deny that the publications were contempts of court. The view that the judge was dealing with a matter entirely within his arbitral powers may need some qualification before it is accepted. But the view may be accepted for the purpose of considering the applicant's submission which is that the publications were not contempts of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. The submission invites this Court to consider only the occasion in reference to which the publications were made, and, if it was not an occasion on which the judge was exercising judicial powers, to hold that the publications were not contempts of court, notwithstanding their meaning, intent and tendency, matters which were not contested by the applicant. The published statements make no nice distinctions between judicial and arbitral powers. Whatever were the particular powers that the judge was exercising on the occasions to which the statements apply, it is important to notice that he was exercising jurisdiction vested in him as a judge of the Court. An attack impugning the integrity of his conduct in connection with a matter which was to be the subject of an administrative order could not fail to reflect in some way upon the Court. The attack made upon the judge in these publications is so gross and outrageous that the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could not possibly be in error in holding that its tendency was to destroy confidence in the Court, assails its authority, and bring scorn on a judge of the Court. This conduct is contempt of court. In these proceedings it is sufficient to say that the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could reasonably reach that conclusion. By s. 17 (3) the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is made a Superior Court of Record. The consequence of this provision is that it has jurisdiction to punish the applicant for the contempt: Metal Trades Case [1] .
R
Taylor; Ex p Roach
High Court of Australia Dixon, McTiernan, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ. R v Taylor; Ex p Roach [1951] HCA 22