Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd

Last updated

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameThe Amalgamated Society of Engineers v The Adelaide Steamship Company Limited and Ors
Decided31 August 1920
Citation(s) (1920) 28 CLR 129;
[1920] HCA 54
Case history
Prior action(s)none
Subsequent action(s)Minister for Trading Concerns (WA) v Amalgamated Society of Engineers [1923] AC 170
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Knox CJ, Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Rich & Starke JJ
Case opinions
(5:1) the States, when parties to an industrial dispute in fact, are subject to the Commonwealth legislation passed pursuant to s51(xxxv) of the Constitution.

(per Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich & Starke JJ;
Higgins J concurring separately;
Gavan Duffy J dissenting)

Contents

Laws applied
This case overturned a previous ruling
Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association [1906] HCA 94, (1906) 4 CLR 488.

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, [1] 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. [2]

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. [1] In Western Australia, the employers included three governmental employers. The question was whether a Commonwealth law made under the "conciliation and arbitration" power regarding industrial disputes, section 51(xxxv), could authorise the making of an award binding the three employers. The case came before the Full Court on a case stated under the Judiciary Act. [3]

Previous approach to constitutional interpretation

The three original judges of the High Court, Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ, and the two new judges appointed in 1906, Isaacs and Higgins JJ, had all been leading participants in the Constitutional Conventions and all are properly seen as among the framers of the Constitution, [4] The Court described the Constitution as "framed in Australia by Australians, and for the use of the Australian people", [5] thus when the Court spoke of what framers of the Constitution knew, intended or expected, [6] they were referring to their personal experience in that process, and not to the intention or knowledge of the Imperial Parliament in passing the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. [7] [8]

In Webb v Outtrim , [9] the Privy Council criticised the High Court's approach to the interpretation of the constitution, holding that the relevant question was not the intention of the Australians who framed the Constitution, but rather what the British Parliament had in mind when it passed the Constitution Act. [7] Despite the criticism, and the challenge by the new appointments to the Court from 1906, the original members of the High Court maintained and continued their approach to constitutional interpretation. [10]

Implied intergovernmental immunities

The original High Court tended to employ the US jurisprudence governing intergovernmental immunity, expressing it as an implied immunity of instrumentalities, where neither the Commonwealth nor State governments could be affected by the laws of the other. [11] This was first expressed in D'Emden v Pedder , [12] Deakin v Webb , [13] and the Railway Servants' case. [14] As Griffith CJ declared in the first case:

In considering the respective powers of the Commonwealth and of the States it is essential to bear in mind that each is, within the ambit of its authority, a sovereign State, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and to the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or necessarily implied... a right of sovereignty subject to extrinsic control is a contradiction in terms. [12]

Reserved state powers

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used in the interpretation of the Constitution that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the states.

Changes to the composition of the court

The appointment or departure of a judge from the High Court can change the dynamics within the court. [15] From 1906 to 1913 there had been five appointments, [16] and the death of O'Connor J in 1912. These changes did not however generally change the approach of the High Court. The first sign of significant change was in the 1919 Municipalities Case where it was held that municipal corporations responsible for the making, maintenance, control and lighting of public streets were not State instrumentalities. [17]

More dramatic consequences flowed, however, from the retirement of Griffith CJ in 1919, the death of Barton J in 1920 and their replacement by Knox CJ and Starke J. The change was described as the departure of statesmen, who interpreted the constitution as a political compact and their replacement by legalists and nationalists, who interpreted it as a legal document. [18]

Argument

The Engineers were represented by Robert Menzies, then a junior barrister. His account of the hearing in Melbourne on 24 May 1920 before the High Court is that he argued that the government sawmills in Western Australia were not state instrumentalities, as they were trading rather than government enterprises. Menzies records Starke J as describing the argument as nonsense and says

I, in what I later realized to be an inspired moment, replied: 'Sir, I quite agree.' 'Well', intervened the Chief Justice, Chief Justice Knox, never the most genial of interrogators, 'why are you putting an argument which you admit is nonsense?' 'Because' ... 'I am compelled by the earlier decisions of this Court. If your Honours will permit me to question all or any of these earlier decisions, I will undertake to advance a sensible argument.' I waited for the heavens to fall. Instead, the Chief Justice said: 'The Court will retire for a few minutes.' And when they came back, he said, 'This case will be adjourned for argument at Sydney. Each government will be notified so that it may apply to intervene. Counsel will be at liberty to challenge any earlier decision of this Court!' [19]

Writing in 1995, Brennan CJ had access to the notebooks of both Knox CJ and Isaacs J, from which he concluded that "It seems quite clear that Menzies lit the fuse in Melbourne, though the main charge for exploding the notion of reciprocal supremacy seems to have been prepared by Isaacs and Rich JJ. in the Municipalities Case. [17] : 533  Yet it was Leverrier's, [20] rather than Menzies' advocacy which seems to have had the greatest impact". [21]

Judgment

The joint majority judgment of Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich & Starke JJ was delivered by Isaacs J and its authorship is commonly attributed to him based on its style which was long, rhetorical and polemic. [18] Higgins J wrote a separate opinion but came to a similar conclusion. Gavan Duffy J dissented.

The joint majority opinion of the Court reviewed the jurisprudence of the Griffith Court and declared: [22]

The more the decisions are examined, and compared with each other and with the Constitution itself, the more evident it becomes that no clear principle can account for them. They are sometimes at variance with the natural meaning of the text of the Constitution; some are irreconcilable with others, and some are individually rested on reasons not founded on the words of the Constitution or on any recognized principle of the common law underlying the expressed terms of the Constitution, but on implication drawn from what is called the principle of 'necessity', that being itself referable to no more definite standard than the personal opinion of the Judge who declares it.

The judgment then returned to first principles on how the Constitution is to be interpreted. The use of American precedent was rejected in favour of applying the settled rules of construction that gave primacy to the text of the Constitution and anchored its interpretation to its express words.

Some "reservations" were made about State prerogatives and special Commonwealth powers (like over taxation); the reservations eventually became subsumed within some general intergovernmental immunity rules to emerge as the Melbourne Corporation doctrine.

The Court considered its earlier decision in D'Emden v Pedder , [23] which had been the foundation case for the original intergovernmental immunities doctrine. It has been said that the Engineers case attacks the reasoning in D'Emden, but rationalises the conclusion. A later case (Attorney-General for Queensland v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth) [24] that applied D'Emden was attacked as resting on opinions "as to hopes and expectations respecting vague external conditions".

The joint majority judgment then went on to establish that the Crown in its various capacities is bound by the Constitution. The power of the Commonwealth to bind the States was seen as an aspect of the general conclusion. Its reasoning invoked the notion of the one and indivisible Crown, which is no longer part of Australian jurisprudence, but that conclusion is capable of being reached without such a notion.

Passages of the joint majority judgment discuss the paramountcy of Commonwealth law, which foreshadow the later expansion of Constitution s109 inconsistency doctrine in Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn : [25] The language of the D'Emden v Pedder non-interference principle lives on in the second ("rights impairment") test of inconsistency. [2]

Significance

Former Chief Justice of Australia Sir Anthony Mason has written: [26]

The combination of literal interpretation and a broad construction of Commonwealth powers led to the Commonwealth assuming a dominant position in the Australian federation vis-a-vis the states. The Engineers case ushered in a period of literal interpretation of the Constitution. Literal interpretation and legalism (of which Sir John Latham was the chief exponent) were characteristic of the Court's constitutional interpretation for the greater part of the 20th century.

The decision has had its critics. In 1937, R.T.E. Latham wrote: [27]

It cut off Australian constitutional law from American precedents, a copious source of thoroughly relevant learning, in favour of crabbed English rules of statutory interpretation, which are one of the sorriest features of English law, and are... particularly unsuited to the interpretation of a rigid Constitution.... The fundamental criticism of the decision is that its real ground is nowhere stated in the majority judgment.

On the question of the use of American and other foreign precedents, Mason wrote:

Before the Engineers case, the Court made considerable use of United States authorities. Following the Engineers case, references to United States authority were much less frequent. The majority remarked: "American authorities... are not a secure basis on which to build fundamentally with respect to our own Constitution [but] in secondary... matters they may... afford considerable light and assistance." [28]

Much later, in the 1980s and the 1990s, the Court made extensive use of foreign authorities and comparative law. This use of foreign precedents was associated with the demise of the Privy Council appeal and the Court's recognition of its responsibility to declare the law for Australia. [26]

Despite the case, doctrine can be based on an implication from the text or structure of the Constitution. Sir Owen Dixon, in particular, was critical of any such overblown reading of the Engineers case in this oft-quoted passage: "The prima-facie rule is that a power to legislate with respect to a given subject enables the Parliament to make laws which, upon that subject, affect the operations of the States and their agencies. That, as I have pointed out more than once, is the effect of the Engineers case stripped of embellishment and reduced to the form of a legal proposition." [29] Earlier, he had written: "We should avoid pedantic and narrow constructions in dealing with an instrument of government and I do not see why we should be fearful about making implications." [30]

Writing in 1971, Windeyer J made the following assessment of the Engineers case: [31]

The Colonies which in 1901 became States in the new Commonwealth were not before then sovereign bodies in any strict legal sense; and certainly the Constitution did not make them so. They were self-governing colonies which, when the Commonwealth came into existence as a new Dominion of the Crown, lost some of their former powers and gained no new powers. They became components of a federation, the Commonwealth of Australia. It became a nation. Its nationhood was in the course of time to be consolidated in war, by economic and commercial integration, by the unifying influence of federal law, by the decline of dependence upon British naval and military power and by a recognition and acceptance of external interests and obligations. With these developments the position of the Commonwealth, the federal government, has waxed; and that of the States has waned. In law that is a result of the paramount position of the Commonwealth Parliament in matters of concurrent power. And this legal supremacy has been reinforced in fact by financial dominance. That the Commonwealth would, as time went on, enter progressively, directly or indirectly, into fields that had formerly been occupied by the States, was from an early date seen as likely to occur. This was greatly aided after the decision in the Engineers case, [1] which diverted the flow of constitutional law into new channels. I have never thought it right to regard the discarding of the doctrine of the implied immunity of the States and other results of the Engineers case [1] as the correction of antecedent errors or as the uprooting of heresy. To return today to the discarded theories would indeed be an error and the adoption of a heresy. But that is because in 1920 the Constitution was read in a new light, a light reflected from events that had, over twenty years, led to a growing realization that Australians were now one people and Australia one country and that national laws might meet national needs. For lawyers the abandonment of old interpretations of the limits of constitutional powers was readily acceptable. It meant only insistence on rules of statutory interpretation to which they were well accustomed. But reading the instrument in this light does not to my mind mean that the original judges of the High Court were wrong in their understanding of what at the time of federation was believed to be the effect of the Constitution and in reading it accordingly. As I see it the Engineers case, looked at as an event in legal and constitutional history, was a consequence of developments that had occurred outside the law courts as well as a cause of further developments there. That is not surprising for the Constitution is not an ordinary statute: it is a fundamental law.

Constitutional scholar, Nicholas Aroney, has been critical of Isaacs' reasoning inconsistent with the Court's jurisprudence:

Prior to the case, the High Court had interpreted the Constitution with regard to its character as a federal compact between the peoples of the separate colonies of Australia, a conception that the judges no doubt considered to be in line with the consensus of opinion among the framers of the Constitution. However, in the Engineers' Case, the High Court under the intellectual leadership of Isaacs J insisted that the Constitution was rather to be understood as a statute of the Imperial Parliament and was to be interpreted as such, according to ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. The Court thus rejected the American theories and precedents with which federalism was associated and insisted that specifically British political ideas and exegetical methods should inform and guide the Court. In substitution for the American idea of federalism, the Court asserted that the British system of parliamentary responsible government was especially fundamental to the system [32]

The Engineers case has also had an important legacy on the High Court's use of comparative (particularly American) cases in developing federalism. In particular, it has isolated Australian federalism case law from the insights of federalism from the United States Supreme Court. [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia is the part of the Constitution of Australia that deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws, and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent state laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdiction is considered persuasive in the others.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<i>OSullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power, under s 51(i) of the Australian Constitution, and inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, under section 109 of the Constitution.

<i>Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn</i> High court of Australia case

Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn, is a High Court of Australia case about inconsistency between a Commonwealth and a State law, which is dealt with in s 109 of the Australian Constitution. It contains classic statements of the denial of rights test and the covering the field test for inconsistency.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

<i>DEmden v Pedder</i>

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.

<i>Pirrie v McFarlane</i> Australian court case

Pirrie v McFarlane is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia on Intergovernmental immunity between tiers of government in the Australian Constitution.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

<i>Attorney-General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

<i>Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd</i> 1918 judgement in Australian law

Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1918 regarding judicial power of the Commonwealth which established that Chapter III of the Constitution required judges to be appointed for life to a specific court, subject only to the removal provisions in the constitution. The majority of the High Court held that because the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was appointed for seven years and not life as required by s 72 of the Constitution, the Arbitration Court could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth.

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.

<i>Farey v Burvett</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Farey v Burvett is an early High Court of Australia case concerning the extent of the defence power of the Commonwealth. The majority of the Court took an expansive view of the defence power in a time of war, holding that the defence power extended to fixing the maximum price for bread. The Court adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power which emphasised the purpose of the legislation, the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter. As the law fell within a Commonwealth power, whether the law was necessary or appropriate for the defence of Australia was a matter for Parliament.

<i>Deakin v Webb</i>

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.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW) Australian tax case

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 Engineers' case.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd</i> Landmark Australian court case

Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd, commonly known as the Woodworkers case or the Sawmillers case was a decision of the High Court of Australia in 1909 concerning the question whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. The High Court was divided 2:2 and thus the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed, in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority. Griffith CJ, O'Connor J agreeing, held that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with the minimum wages fixed by a Wages Board under a State law.

<i>SS Kalibia v Wilson</i>

SS Kalibia v Wilson, was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (Engineers case) [1920] HCA 54 , (1920) 28 CLR 129.
  2. 1 2 Booker, Keven; Glass, Arthur; Watt, Rob (1998). "3 at paras [3.25]-[3.36]". Federal Constitutional Law: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Sydney: Federation Press.
  3. ↑ Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 18 Reference to Full Court.
  4. ↑ The WorkChoices case [2006] HCA 52 , (2006) 229 CLR 1 at [48]-[49] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ.
  5. ↑ Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21 , (1904) 1 CLR 497.
  6. ↑ D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91 at p. 113; Railway Servants' case [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91 at p. 536.
  7. 1 2 "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp)" (PDF).
  8. ↑ Higgins J noted in Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) [1907] HCA 76 , (1907) 4 CLR 1087 at p. 1169-70 that in relation to section 74 of the Constitution the question of intention may be a reference to the intention of the Conventions, the Australian voters who approved the draft constitution, the Australian delegates in London who negotiated the passage of the constitution, the British law officers who redrafted section 74 or to the Houses of the British Parliament who passed the Constitution Act 1900 (Imp).
  9. ↑ Webb v Outtrim [1906] UKPC 75 , [1907] AC 81; [1906] UKPCHCA 4 , (1906) 4  CLR  356, Privy Council (on appeal fromVic,Australia).
  10. ↑ R v Barger [1908] HCA 43 , (1908) 6 CLR 41 at p. 69-7 per Grifith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ.
    Union label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 514 per Griffith CJ.
    Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330 at p. 563 per Barton J.
  11. ↑ A Twomey. "Federal limitations on the legislative power of the States and the Commonwealth to bind one another" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 February 2017. Retrieved 19 June 2017. (2003) 31 Federal Law Review 507 at p. 508.
  12. 1 2 D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91.
  13. ↑ Deakin v Webb [1904] HCA 57 , (1904) 1 CLR 585.
  14. ↑ Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association (Railway Servants' case) [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91.
  15. ↑ French, R (2015). "Book Launch" (PDF).
  16. ↑ Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy Powers and Rich. Piddington was appointed in 1913 but never sat as a judge.
  17. 1 2 Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia v Melbourne Corporation [1919] HCA 73 , (1919) 26 CLR 508.
  18. 1 2 A Twomey (2015). "Ch 6 the Knox Court". In Dixon, R; Williams, G (eds.). The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9781107043664.
  19. ↑ Menzies, R.G. (1967). Central Power of the Australian Commonwealth . pp.  38–39.
  20. ↑ Leverrier KC , counsel for the Commonwealth
  21. ↑ The Hon. Sir Gerard Brennan (1995). "Three cheers for Engineers: 75th Anniversary of the Engineers Case".
  22. ↑ Engineers case (1920) 28 CLR 129 at pp. 141–2 per Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich & Starke JJ.
  23. ↑ D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91.
  24. ↑ Attorney-General for Queensland v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth [1915] HCA 39 , (1915) 20 CLR 148.
  25. ↑ Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn [1926] HCA 6 , (1926) 37 CLR 466.
  26. 1 2 Anthony Mason (2003). "High Court of Australia: A Personal Impression of its first 100 years". Melbourne University Law Review. (2003) 27 Melbourne University Law Review 864.
  27. ↑ quoted in Winterton, Lee, Glass and Thomson, Australian Federal Constitutional Law: Commentary and Materials (Law Book Co. 1999) at 757
  28. ↑ Engineers case (1920) 28 CLR 129 at p. 146 per Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich & Starke JJ.
  29. ↑ Melbourne Corporation case [1947] HCA 26 , (1947) 74 CLR 31 at p. 78 per Dixon J.
  30. ↑ Airlines Nationalisation case [1945] HCA 41 , (1945) 71 CLR 29 at p. 85 per Dixon J.
  31. ↑ Payroll Tax case [1971] HCA 16 , 122 CLR 353 at p. 396-7 per Windeyer J.
  32. ↑ Aroney, Nicholas (2008). "Constitutional Choices in the Work Choices Case, or What Exactly Is Wrong with the Reserved Powers Doctrine?". Melbourne University Law Review. (2008) 32(1) Melbourne University Law Review 1.
  33. ↑ Partlett, William, Engineers' Problematic Comparative Legacy, (2020) 31(1) Public Law Review 22-27 SSRN   3593138
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.