Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd
| Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | The Amalgamated Society of Engineers v The Adelaide Steamship Company Limited and Ors |
| Decided | 31 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 |
| 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. |
|
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Knox CJ, Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Rich & Starke JJ |
(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)
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.
The Engineers case arose out of a claim lodged by a union of engineers in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for an award relating to 844 employers across Australia. 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 section 18 of the Judiciary Act.
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.Higgins J wrote a separate opinion but came to a similar conclusion. Gavan Duffy J dissented.
...
Wikipedia