Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd

Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd
Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd
Court High Court of Australia
Full case name Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd
Date decided 3 September 1971
Citation(s) (1971) 124 CLR 468
Judge(s) sitting Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh and Gibbs JJ
Case history
Prior action(s) none
Subsequent action(s) none
Case opinions
(7:0) The restrictions placed over Commonwealth power to regulate constitutional corporations, from Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330, have been overturned, and the Commonwealth may regulate trading activities of trading corporations (per Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh & Gibbs JJ)

Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 468, also known as the Concrete Pipes Case, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. 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 (1909) 8 CLR 330, 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 Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power.

The width of this power was later considered again in the cases of Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films (1982) 150 CLR 169, Commonwealth v Tasmania (the Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1, Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323 and New South Wales v Commonwealth (the WorkChoices Case) (2006) 229 CLR 1.

Contents

Background

Section 43 of the Trade Practices Act 1965-1969 (Cth) made certain agreements between competitors restricting competition "examinable", and the respondents in this case were charged with breaching that section. The agreements in question were exclusively related to trade in Queensland, and thus, the respondents would have fallen within the legislative power granted by section 51(i) of the Constitution. The Commonwealth Industrial Court, at first instance, rejected the charge, following Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, in which it was held that a law with respect to the trading activities of constitutional corporations was not within power.

Decision

Corporations power

The Court unanimously rejected the decision in Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, holding that it was based on the rejected doctrine of reserved State powers, which was abolished in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd.; "the earlier doctrine virtually reversed the Constitution" (per Barwick CJ). The Court found that laws with a sufficient connection to the trading activities of constitutional corporations were valid. In addition, the broader conception of the corporations power, that allows for the regulation of any activities of constitutional corporations, was flagged; "I must not be taken as suggesting that the question whether a particular law is a law within the scope of this power should be approached in any narrow or pedantic manner" (per Barwick CJ).

Reading down

Barwick CJ also gave guidance as to reading laws with respect to section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). While he noted that there can be an express intention by the Parliament as to the interpretation of the law, he stated that if it is "single and indivisible", it will not be possible to read down the law and provide it with an alternative interpretation. The coexistence of sections 7 and 35(1) meant that it would have had to apply to both all trade, and to only foreign and interstate trade. However, since section 35(1) is a single provision and not a series of paragraphs, Barwick CJ felt that it would be "legislating and not construing" if it were broken up accordingly.

See also

References

  • Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем написать реферат

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution — Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations… …   Wikipedia

  • Section 51(xx) of the Constitution of Australia — Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations… …   Wikipedia

  • List of High Court of Australia cases — This is a chronological list of significant cases decided by the High Court of Australia. =The Griffith Court: 1903 1919= *Dalgarno v Hannah (1903): the first case decided by the Court * Jumbunna Coalmine (1908): Registration of Trade Unions… …   Wikipedia

  • Adelaide Steamship Company — The Adelaide Steamship Company logo with motto Festina Lente (Hasten slowly) …   Wikipedia

  • New South Wales v Commonwealth (1990) — New South Wales v Commonwealth Court High Court of Australia Full case name New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia v The Commonwealth of Australia …   Wikipedia

  • Murray Gleeson — The Honourable Murray Gleeson AC, QC 11th Chief Justice of Australia In office 22 May 1998 – …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”