Huddart Parker Ltd v The Commonwealth - [1931] HCA 1

HUDDART PARKER LIMITED AND OTHERS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENTS.

AND ANOTHER

DEFENDANTS, Constitutional Law-Validity of Commonwealth legislation-Trade and commerce-

Transport workers-Regulations-Restriction of employment to members of specified trades union-Validity-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. MELBOURNE,

51 (XXXV.), 92-Transport Workers Act 1928-1929 (No. 37 of 1928-No. 3 of Jan. 6, 7;

1929), sec. 3*-Transport Workers (Waterside) Regulations (S.R. 1930, No. 158)*-Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1930 (No. 2 of 1901-No. 23 of 1930),

Sec. 3 of the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929 is expressed to empower the Governor-General to make regulations not inconsistent with that Act with respect to the employment of transport workers, and in particular for regulating the engagement, service, and the discharge of transport workers, and the licensing of persons as transport workers, and for regulating or pro- hibiting the employment of unlicensed persons as transport workers and for the protection of transport workers. * The Transport Workers Act 1928-

ment of unlicensed persons as transport 1929 (No. 37 of 1928-No. 3 of 1929)

workers, and for the protection of provides :- 3. The Governor-General

transport workers." may make regulations not inconsistent

The Transport Workers (Waterside) with this Act, which, notwithstanding

Regulations (Statutory Rules 1930, No. anything in any other Act but subject

158) provide: 1. These Regulations to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1918

may be cited as the Transport Workers and the Acts Interpretation Act 1904-

(Waterside) Regulations. 2. (1) In the 1916, shall have the force of law, with

employment, engagement or picking-up respect to the employment of transport

of transport workers (being waterside workers, and in particular for regulating

workers) for oversea or inter-State the engagement, service, and discharge

vessels at the ports in the Common- of transport workers, and the licensing

wealth to which Part III. of the of persons as transport workers, and for

Transport Workers Act 1928-1929 r regulating or prohibiting the employ-

applies, priority shall be given to those

44 CLR 493

Held, by Rich, Dixon and Evatt JJ., that such provision operates to authorize a regulation made by the Governor-General requiring that in the employment, engagement or picking up of transport workers (being waterside workers) for oversea and inter-State vessels at the ports to which Part III. of the Act applies, priority shall be given to those workers available for employment, engagement or picking up at those ports who are members of the Waterside Workers' Federation, and, to that extent at least, is a valid exercise of the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament,

Per Gavan Duffy C.J., that the regulation was inconsistent with Part III. Per Starke J., that sec. 3 of the Act and the regulation were invalid.

MOTION for injunction referred to Full Court.

The plaintiffs, Huddart Parker Ltd. and the Melbourne Steamship Co. Ltd. (who carried on business as, inter alia, shipowners engaged in inter-State trade and commerce in the Commonwealth of Australia and the loading and unloading of ships, and who engaged waterside workers in various ports of the Commonwealth), and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Huddart Parker Ltd v The Commonwealth and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1931] HCA 1
Decision Date: 17 February 1931

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Huddart Parker Ltd and others brought an action against the Commonwealth of Australia seeking a declaration that the Transport Workers (Waterside) Regulations 1930 were invalid, either because they were not authorised by the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929, or because the Act itself was beyond the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. The regulations, made under the Act, stipulated that priority in the engagement of waterside workers for oversea and inter-State vessels must be given to members of the Waterside Workers' Federation.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether section 3 of the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929 validly empowered the Governor-General to make regulations that mandated preference to union members in the engagement of waterside workers, and whether such a regulation was consistent with the Act itself and within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, particularly the trade and commerce power. The court was also required to consider whether the regulation was inconsistent with Part III of the Act, which established a licensing system for transport workers.

A majority of the Court, comprising Rich, Dixon, and Evatt JJ., held that the regulation was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's legislative power. They reasoned that section 3 of the Act, when read in conjunction with the Acts Interpretation Act, conferred the power to make regulations concerning the engagement of transport workers, and that the regulation in question, by requiring preference to union members, fell within this power. The majority viewed the regulation as directly regulating an operation of trade and commerce, specifically the selection of individuals to perform work on ships engaged in inter-State and oversea trade, and thus within the scope of the Commonwealth's trade and commerce power. Conversely, Gavan Duffy C.J. found the regulation to be inconsistent with Part III of the Act, while Starke J. considered both the Act and the regulation to be invalid.

The Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an injunction. The majority's reasoning established that the Commonwealth Parliament could legislate to regulate the engagement of workers involved in inter-State and oversea trade, including provisions that granted preference to union members, provided such legislation was framed as a law with respect to trade and commerce.

Orders