Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 1] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 857 the Act was open to serious objection, as interference with existing litigation was most unusual and unprecedented, a phrase which he would hardly have used if he had remem- bered recent legislation in Ontario! His view of the Act was that no Act of any state could prejudice the rights of the Federal Parliament and of the Federal Arbitration Court under the Constitution. The powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration were further considered in the case of The King v. Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, ex parte Whybrow and Company. The case is of particular interest as several important collateral questions were raised. In that case an application had been made to the President of the Court—Mr. Justice Higgins—by the Australian Boot Trade Employés’ Federation asking for the intervention of the Court in an alleged industrial dispute between the federation and certain employers carrying on business as boot manufacturers in the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia. He made an award on certain points, and in accordance with the terms of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904, he exercised the poyer of declaring his award to be a common rule for the whole trade. The employers, being unable to bring an appeal from the award itself under the Act, which by s. 31 forbids an appeal, applied for and obtained a rule nisi for a prohibition to restrain the Court and the Boot Trade Employés’ Federation from further proceedings upon the order and award. They claimed among other things that the Act of 1904 was uncon- stitutional and beyond the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. On the other hand, it was objected on behalf of the Boot Trade Employés that the High Court had no power to issue prohibition against the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. This objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was rejected ‘Cf. 6 Edw. VIL c. 12; 7 Edw. VIL c. 15; 8 Edw. VIL ec. 22; Y Edw. VIL c. 19; above, pp. 745 seq. 2 (1910) 11 CL. R. 1.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation