asserted its power to correct jurisdictional error and in doing so expanded the scope of prohibition beyond the reach it had in English courts. The Parliament subsequently amended the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in an attempt to prevent the High Court from granting prohibition against the Arbitration Court. Tramways case, (1914): in which the High Court considered the effect of the amendment. The Court refused to overrule Whybrow (No 2) and held that the amendments to s 31 were not effective to remove the constitutional availability of prohibition and mandamus. R v Hibble; Ex parte BHP (1921): the High Court held that prohibition lies under s 75(v) of the constitution in relation to jurisdictional error. R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945): the High Court again considered the nature of prohibition and held that prohibition lies under s 75(v) of the constitution in relation to jurisdictional error. Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW (2010): the High Court held that State Parliaments cannot prevent State Supreme Courts from issuing prerogative relief for jurisdictional error. Common rule awards The 1911 referendum sought to address the decision in Whybrow (No 3) to give the Federal parliament the power to directly regulate the wages and conditions of labour, however this was soundly defeated, obtaining the support of 39.4% of voters and a majority in only one State, Western Australia. Whybrow (No 3) was one of 11 decisions of the High Court referred to by the Attorney-General, Billy Hughes, as cutting down the Commonwealth's powers until they were futile and justifying the changes proposed in the 1913 referendum. The 1913 referendum would have given the Federal parliament the power to directly regulate the terms and conditions of employment, however this too was defeated, albeit narrowly, obtaining the support of 49.3% of voters and a majority in only three States, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. One effect of the emphasis in Whybrow (No 3) to the parties to the dispute was to exclude the possibility of an award being binding on employers who did not employ union members. This emphasis was overturned by the High Court in Burwood Cinema Ltd v Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association, on the basis that unions have an interest in protecting their members' working conditions and consequently, ensuring that these conditions are not undermined by employers employing non-union members at lower rates of pay or on lower