Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In law, ex parte (/ ɛ k s ˈ p ɑːr t eɪ,-iː /) is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction [1] of" (name of party/faction, often omitted), thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present.
Ex parte H.V. McKay, [1] commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP, [1] was an early decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in which the High Court controversially, [2] granted prohibition against the Arbitration Court to prevent it from enforcing aspects ...
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, [1] known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and ...
R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte W.A. National Football League: 1979 143 CLR 190 Barwick: 345 Aka Adamson's Case Decided that a "trading and financial" corporation (a pl.(xx) entity) could be more than just a corporation set up for the purpose of trade, as long as its current revenue included a significant proportion of trading activities
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally [1] was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.
This exception has in subsequent cases been used to allow courts to be vested with wide-ranging powers. Thus, in R v Joske; Ex parte Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers' Federation, powers such as reorganising unions and invalidating union rules were allowed to be exercised by a chapter III court. [8]
R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell [1] is a High Court of Australia case about inconsistency between Commonwealth and State legislation, which is dealt with by s 109 of the Australian Constitution. It is the leading example of what is known as the impossibility of simultaneous obedience test.