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]
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.
Re Australian Education Union & Australian Nursing Federation; ex parte Victoria [1] [2] is a High Court of Australia constitutional law case that involves the scope of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine in Australian constitutional law.
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal on 22 and 24 June 1955, but the matter was dismissed. [1] Browne and Fitzpatrick applied to the Privy Council for leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment, but leave was refused. [1] The sentences were served in the Canberra police lock-up (while appeals were pending) and Goulburn Gaol.
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 ...
The AOL.com video experience serves up the best video content from AOL and around the web, curating informative and entertaining snackable videos.
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 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 ...