|
Engineers' Case
''Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd'', commonly known as the ''Engineers case'', . was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation. Widely regarded as one of the most important cases ever decided by the High Court of Australia, it swept away the earlier doctrines of implied intergovernmental immunities and reserved state powers, thus paving the way for fundamental changes in the nature of federalism in Australia. Background Facts The ''Engineers case'' arose out of a claim lodged by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers against the Adelaide Steamship Company in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for an award relating to 844 employers across Australia. In Western Australia, the employers i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Australia
The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises Original jurisdiction, original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Constitution of Australia, Australia's Constitution. The High Court was established following passage of the ''Judiciary Act 1903''. It derives its authority from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it responsibility for the judiciary, judicial power of the Commonwealth. Important legal instruments pertaining to the High Court include the ''Judiciary Act 1903'' and the ''High Court of Australia Act 1979''.. Its bench is composed of seven justices, including a Chief Justice of Australia, Chief Justice, currently Susan Kiefel. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Governor-General of Australia, Governor-General on the Advice (constitutional law), advice of the Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister and are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire ea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Samuel Griffith
Sir Samuel Walker Griffith, (21 June 1845 – 9 August 1920) was an Australian judge and politician who served as the inaugural Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1903 to 1919. He also served a term as Chief Justice of Queensland and two terms as Premier of Queensland, and played a key role in the drafting of the Australian Constitution. Griffith was born in Wales, arriving in the Moreton Bay district of New South Wales (now the state of Queensland) at the age of eight. He attended the University of Sydney, and after further legal training was called to the bar in 1867. Griffith was elected to the Queensland Legislative Assembly in 1872. He served as Attorney-General from 1874 to 1878, and subsequently became the leader of the parliament's liberal faction. Griffith's terms as premier ran from 1883 to 1888 and from 1890 to 1893. He led the Australian delegation to the 1887 Colonial Conference and took a keen interest in external affairs, giving financial and administrat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd V Moorehead
''Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead''. is a leading decision by the High Court of Australia that dealt with two issues under the Australian Constitution, the identification and extent of judicial power that is vested in the courts and the corporations power of the Parliament. The Court unanimously held that the inquiry provisions of the ''Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906'' were not an exercise of judicial power. The judgement of Griffith CJ in particular continues to be cited in relation to its examination of the identification and extent of judicial power. The court, however, divided on the proper approach to the corporations power. The majority, Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, strongly influenced by the now discredited doctrine of reserved State powers, held that the corporations power was to be construed narrowly because the trade and commerce power did not include intrastate trade and commerce. While the reserved powers doctrine was unambiguously r ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Attorney-General For NSW V Brewery Employees Union Of NSW
''Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW'',. commonly known as the ''Union Label case'', was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 8 August 1908. The case was significant in relation to the endorsement by the majority of the court of the reserved powers doctrine and as the first case to consider the scope of the power of the Commonwealth regarding trade marks. It also addressed who could challenge a law as unconstitutional. There was a strong division in the Court between the original members , Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ and the two newly appointed justices, Isaacs and Higgins JJ. Background The case concerned the use of union labels to indicate that goods were produced by members of a union. Isaac Isaacs, the then Attorney-General, supported the Trade Marks Bill in parliament, describing the union label as a guarantee of wholesomeness, in respect of the wages, hours of labour, and health requirements that applied to the manufacture ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Barger
''R v Barger''. is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the Section 51(ii) of the Australian Constitution, taxation power The prosecutions Despite the declaration in the Harvester case, McKay did not increase the wages paid to his employees to the minimum that Higgins J had declared to be fair and reasonable, nor did he pay the excise specified in the ''Excise Act'' 1906. Both McKay and another manufacturer of agricultural machinery in Melbourne, William Barger, were prosecuted by the Commonwealth for failing to pay the excise. The defences of Barger and McKay included an objection that the ''Excise Act'' 1906 was invalid. That objection was referred to the Full Court of the High Court for hearing. The argument for Barger and McKay was that although the Act on its face purports to be an exercise of the taxation power, the real substance and effect of the Act was with respect to the conditions and remuneration of labour. The State of Victoria obtained ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, other than for the United Kingdom itself.P. A. Howell, ''The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure, and Development'', Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979 Formally a statutory committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, the Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors; they are predominantly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Although it is often simply referred to as the 'Privy Council', the Judicial Committee is only one cons ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Webb V Outtrim
''Deakin v Webb'' was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 ''Engineers' Case''. Background The ability of a state to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer was one of the "constitutional loose ends" about the nature of the federal system and the legislative powers of the new Commonwealth that remained unresolved following the debates in the constitutional conventions. The High Court and the Privy Council One of the issues debated in the drafting of the C ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section 74 Of The Constitution Of Australia
In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. Separation of powers in Australia The doctrine of separation of powers refers to a system of government whereby three aspects of government powerlegislative power, executive power, and judicial powerare vested in separate institutions. This doctrine holds that abuse of power can be avoided by each arm of government acting as a check on another. In Australia, this separation is implied in the structure of the Constitution. Chapter I outlines legislative powerthe making, altering or repealing of laws; Chapter II outlines executive powerthe general and detailed carrying on of governmental functions; Chapter III outlines judicial powerthe interpretation of law, and adjudication ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Baxter V Commissioners Of Taxation (NSW)
''Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW)'',. and ''Flint v Webb'', were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with ''Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW)'' addressing the substantive issues, and ''Flint v Webb'' addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in ''Flint v Webb'' suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 ''Eng ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
D'Emden V Pedder
''D'Emden v Pedder''. was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws. The case was the first of several in which the High Court applied the implied intergovernmental immunities doctrine, relied on in the Supreme Court of the United States case of '' McCulloch v. Maryland'','' McCulloch v. Maryland'' which held that the state and Commonwealth governments were normally immune from each other's laws, and which, along with the reserved State powers doctrine, would be a significant feature of Australian constitutional law until both doctrines were rejected in the landmark Engineers' case in 1920. The case is also significant as the first c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Peterswald V Bartley
''Peterswald v Bartley'' . is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise. Background Bartley was a brewer of beer at Cootamundra in the state of New South Wales. He had a licence under the Commonwealth ''Beer Excise Act'' 1901 however he didn't have a licence under the NSW ''Liquor Act 1898''. Sergeant Peterswald was a police officer and District Licensing Inspector and he charged Bartley with carrying on the trade or business of a brewer without holding a licence under the NSW Act and the issue concerned the payment of a licence fee. The Police Magistrate upheld Bartley's contention that the licence fee was an excise duty and that the effect of section 90 of the Australian Constitution was that the state Act ceased to have effect once the Commonwealth imposed uniform customs duties. Peterswald appealed to the Supreme Court of NSW, where the Sergeant was represented by the then ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commonwealth Law Reports
The Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR) () are the authorised reports of decisions of the High Court of Australia. The Commonwealth Law Reports are published by the Lawbook Company, a division of Thomson Reuters. James Merralls AM QC was the editor of the Reports from 1969 until his death in 2016. The current editors are Christopher Horan KC and Paul Vout KC. Each reported judgment includes a headnote written by an expert reporter (by convention, a practising barrister) which, as an authorised report, has been approved by the High Court. The current reporters are as follows: * Roshan Chaile * Ella Delany * Bora Kaplan * Rudi Kruse * James McComish * William Newland * Alistair Pound SC * Daniel Reynolds * Alexander Solomon-Bridge * Julia Wang * Michael Wells * Jillian Williams * Radhika Withana The headnotes include a summary of counsel's legal arguments. The Reports also include tables of cases reported, affirmed, reversed, overruled, applied or judicially commented on and cited ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
