ARBITRATION COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1426, 13 November 1923, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

ITS JURISDICTION QUESTIONED

There is a distinct novelty, in New Zealand at all events, in the appearance of the members of the Court of Arbitration as defendants in a legal appeal, and for that amongst other reasons interest and importance attach to the judgment of the Full Court in respect of an application by the Waterside Workers' Federation for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Arbitration Court from enforcing certain provisions of the awtand governing waterside work. Apart from the merits of the case, as identified with the provisions and effect of the award, and the validity of the action of the Arbitration Court in inserting these provisions in the award, the Full Court (according to the Otago Daily Times) had to consider the wider question of its own. jurisdiction to interfere in any circumstances with the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. This latter point was raised at the outset by Mr C.Skerrett, K.C., who appeared in opposition to the application. He contended that the Court of Arbitration was entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court since sub-section 2 of section 96 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act reads: "Proceedings in the Court shall not be impeached or held bad for want of form, or shall the same be removable to any Court by certiorari or otherwise; and no award, order, or proceedings of the Court shall be challenged, appealed against, quashed ,or called in question by any Court of judicature on any account whatever." In support of the application, Mr O'Regan made the point that the Arbitration Act of New South Wales was practically a reprint of the New Zealand statute, and contained the very provision upon which Mr Skerrett had relied; yet the Australian High Court had frequently granted prohibition restraining the Court of Arbitration. It was also argued that, while the Court of Arbitration could not be restrained as long as it acted within its own jurisdiction, when that jurisdiction was exceeded the Supreme Court had the same power to restrain it as it had over any other inferior court. After hearnig lengthy argument the Full Court has decided that the clause in the award objected to by the Waterside Workers' Federation is not ultra vires, and it has accordingly dismissed the application of the Federation with costs. Upon its merits, therefore, the case for the waterside workers has been unsuccessful. But the judges would not have got so far had they not already come to a determination on the more interesting question of the jurisdiction of the Full Court. An award of the Arbitartion Court, said Justice Sir John Salmond, in delivering the judgment of his colleagues and himself, was examinable in the Supreme Court, and a writ of prohibition could issue from the latter to the Arbitration Court. This judgment establishes the status of the Arbitration Court in its relationship to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The circumstance that tine position has only now been tested would seem to testify rather eloquently to the discretion with which the operations of the Arbitration Court have been conducted in the Dominion since its inception.