High Court. Can it be said that "an order of an inferior court that is affected by jurisdictional error has no legal force as an order of that court so that, for example, a failure to obey such an order cannot be a contempt of that court"?
Some of the questions to the High Court (HCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that "an order of an inferior court that is affected by jurisdictional error has no legal force as an order of that court so that, for example, a failure to obey such an order cannot be a contempt of that court"?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes', is that order nevertheless subject to correction on appeal and capable of being subject to prohibition?
Question 3: Is an order a superior court "valid unless and until set aside including where the order is made without jurisdiction, such as where the order of the superior court was based on a statute that was unconstitutional"?
Question 4: Can it be said that, "in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, superior courts of record possess the power to try and punish contempts of any kind relating to that court, as well as contempts of inferior courts over which they have supervisory jurisdiction"?
Question 5: Can it be said that, "without a statutory provision providing a power to do so, inferior courts of record can only punish for contempts committed "in the face of the [c]ourt""?
Question 6: Can it be said that "courts that are not courts of record, without statutory provision providing a power to do so, have no power to punish for contempts of any kind"?
The HCA answered those questions as follows: