PROPRIETARY LIMITED Constitutional law (Cth.)-Judicial power-Appllate jurisdiction-Federal juris-
diction-State jurisdiction-Power of Parliament to create Federal court with appellate jurisdiction-In respect of matters set out in ss. 75, 76 of Constitution- Only from orders etc. of lower courts exercising Federal jurisdiction-Power of Parliament to prescribe exceptions from jurisdiction of High Court to hear and May 16, 17, determine appeals-Consistency between Federal and State laws-Award of conciliation commissioner-Dealing comprehensively with conditions of employ- ment but not with long service leave-Long service leave outside jurisdiction of conciliation commissioner-State Act prescribing long service leave for, inter alia, persons covered by award-Validity-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. C. 12) 88. 71, 73 (ii.), 76 (ii.), 77, 109-Judiciary Act 1903-1950 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 80 of 1950), S. 39 2 (c)-Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952 (No. 13 of 1904-No. 34 of 1952), 88. 13 1 (c), 25 (c), 31, 48 (2), 51-Factories and Shops (Long Service Leave) Act 1953 (No. 5706) (Vict.), 88. 7, 9 (2), (4).
2Except as provided in the last preceding sub-section, there shall be no appeal from a judgment or order from which an appeal may be brought to
Held that S. 31 was invalid on the ground that it conferred an appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration from State courts exercising State jurisdiction and on the further ground, as to sub-s. (1) insofar as it attempted to invest the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration with
1There shall be an appeal to the court from a judgment or order of any other court-(a) in proceedings arising under this Act (including proceedings under section fifty-nine of this Act or proceedings for an offence against this Act) or involving the interpretation of this Act and (b) in proceedings arising under an order or award or involving the interpretation of an order or award, and the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any such appeal.
92 CLR 530
jurisdiction in excess of that in respect of matters arising under the Act, that it was not authorized by S. 77 (i.).
Per Taylor J.: The power conferred on Parliament by S. 73 of the Constitu- tion to prescribe exceptions from the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine appeals is to be exercised by reference to some characteristic of the judgment or order of the lower court (e.g. the fact that the order is interlocutory or the amount involved is insubstantial) and not by reference to the type of matter involved.
The Tramways Case [No. 1] (1914) 18 C.L.R. 54, at p. 76 and Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australasia v. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. (1916) 22 C.L.R. 103, at pp. 117, 118, referred to.
The Factories and Shops (Long Service Leave) Act 1953 (Vict.), S. 7 (I) provides that every worker, as defined in the Act, shall be entitled to long service leave on ordinary pay in…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Collins v Charles Marshall Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Collins v Charles Marshall Pty Ltd [1955] HCA 44
Case
[1955] HCA 44
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Metropolitan Industrial Court of Victoria. The appellant, an Inspector of Factories and Shops, had charged the respondent company with failing to grant an employee long service leave as required by the *Factories and Shops (Long Service Leave) Act 1953* (Vict.). The respondent argued that this State Act was inconsistent with the *Metal Trades Award 1952*, made under the federal *Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952*, and therefore inoperative by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution. The magistrate accepted this defence and dismissed the information.
The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether section 31 of the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952* operated to prevent the High Court from hearing the appeal, either by limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court or by conferring exclusive appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the *Factories and Shops (Long Service Leave) Act 1953* (Vict.) was rendered invalid by section 109 of the Constitution due to an inconsistency with the *Metal Trades Award 1952*.
The Court held that section 31 of the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act* was invalid to the extent that it purported to confer appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration from State courts exercising State jurisdiction, and also in so far as it attempted to invest that court with jurisdiction beyond matters arising under the Act itself, as this was not authorised by section 77(i) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the federal Parliament's power to create federal courts and define their jurisdiction did not extend to creating a general appellate control over State courts exercising State jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found no inconsistency between the Victorian Act and the *Metal Trades Award* that would render the State Act inoperative under section 109 of the Constitution. The award did not deal with long service leave, which was outside the commissioner's jurisdiction, and the State Act did not prevent the termination of employment but merely prescribed consequences for it.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the magistrate had erred in dismissing the information. The Court concluded that section 31 of the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act* was constitutionally invalid in its broad operation and that the Victorian *Factories and Shops (Long Service Leave) Act 1953* was valid and operative in this instance, as there was no conflict with the federal award. The case was remitted to the Metropolitan Industrial Court of Victoria for further hearing.