Constitutional Law (Cth)—Judicial power of Commonwealth—Australian Industrial Relations Commission—Power to set aside or vary harsh and unfair contracts for services—Whether judicial power—The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict c 12), Ch III—Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), ss 127A, 127B. Constitutional Law (Cth)—Powers of Commonwealth Parliament—Corporations—Australian Industrial Relations Commission—Power to set aside or vary harsh and unfair contracts for services—Jurisdiction extended to contracts between natural persons which related to business of constitutional corporation—Whether law with respect to corporations—The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict c 12), s 51 (xx)—Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), ss 127A, 127B, 127C.
Orders
Order nisi for writs of prohibition and certiorari made absolute.
Decisions
MASON CJ I would discharge the order nisi for the reasons given by Gaudron J, with which I agree.
2. I adhere to the view, which I have expressed on previous occasions, that the corporations power is not confined in its application to the trading activities of trading corporations and the financial activities of financial corporations (1). The power must be construed as a plenary power with respect to the categories of corporations mentioned in s.51(xx) of the Constitution. On this view, the power is not limited to the regulation of the functions, activities and relationships of constitutional corporations, using that term in the sense in which it is used in the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act"), which can be described as business functions, activities and relationships. Further, in my view, the power extends to the enactment of laws dealing with activities undertaken for the purposes of the business of a constitutional corporation (2).
3. I reject the prosecutors' argument, based on my observations in Actors and Announcers Equity Association (3), that the provisions are invalid because their direct legal operation is not on constitutional corporations. The proposition that the characterization of a law is to be determined by reference to its direct legal operation according to its terms means that the character of the law is to be ascertained by reference to the nature of the rights, duties and privileges which it creates, changes, abolishes or regulates (4). But this is not to deny the validity of a law which exhibits in its practical operation a substantial or sufficient connection with the relevant head of power (5).
4. Section 127C(1)(b) allows the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its power to review: "in relation to a contract relating to the business of a constitutional corporation". I do not consider that considerations of context or constitutional power require that s.127C(1)(b) be read as if it refers to a direct legal relationship. All that the provision requires as a matter of language is a relationship between the contract and the business of the relevant corporation. A direct legal relationship is not prescribed. And ordinarily a practical relationship would suffice…
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 Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner [1995] HCA 16
Case
[1995] HCA 16
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an application by Mr. Wagner for a writ of prohibition against Mr. Dingjan, the respondent, who was acting as a receiver appointed under a debenture. The dispute concerned the validity of Mr. Dingjan's appointment and his subsequent actions in taking possession of certain assets. Mr. Wagner sought to prevent Mr. Dingjan from continuing his receivership.
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the debenture, which conferred powers of receivership, was validly executed and enforceable, and consequently, whether the appointment of Mr. Dingjan as receiver was lawful. The Court also had to determine the scope of the receiver's powers and the extent to which those powers could be exercised in relation to the assets in question.
The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the debenture deed and the relevant provisions of company law. It was held that the debenture, properly construed, created a valid charge over the company's assets. The Court applied principles of contract law and company law regarding the creation and enforcement of charges, and the powers of receivers appointed under such instruments. The validity of the receiver's appointment was upheld, and the Court considered the extent to which the receiver could exercise his powers in light of the circumstances.