Engineers Case
| 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 the Judiciary Act.
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, The Court described the Constitution as "framed in Australia by Australians, and for the use of the Australian people", thus when the Court spoke of what was framers of the Constitution knew, intended or expected, 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.
...
Wikipedia