Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The constitutional convention in 1891 came after the maritime dispute and at the start of the shearers' strike. [8] It was with this background that Charles Kingston, the then Premier of South Australia, unsuccessfully proposed that the Australian parliament have the power to establish courts of conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes. [9]
R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka, [1] was a landmark Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 24 February 1983. It concerned section 41 of the Australian Constitution, and the question of whether four people eligible to vote in New South Wales could be prevented from voting at the federal level by a federal law which closed registration to vote on the day that the writs of ...
In Australian law ex parte is used in two senses. The predominant use is to refer to an ex parte hearing, being one which is heard in the absence of one or more parties. Where proceedings are heard ex parte, a high degree of candour is required, including full and fair disclosure of facts adverse to the moving party.
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 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 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.
This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, [2] which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the ...
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 .