Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co,[1] commonly known as Whybrow's case[2] or the Boot Trades case,[3] was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow (No 1) that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws.[4] In Whybrow (No 2) the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction.[5] Finally in Whybrow (No 3) the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.[1]
Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co (No 1) | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co and others |
Decided | 30 March 1910 |
Citations | [1910] HCA 8, (1910) 10 CLR 266 |
Case history | |
Prior action | Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co (Boot Trades Case) (1909) 4 CAR 1 per Higgins J President. |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs & Higgins JJ |
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Whybrow & Co (No 2) | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | The King v the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and the President thereof and the Boot Trade Employees Federation. Ex parte Whybrow & Co and others. |
Decided | 10 July 1910 |
Citations | [1910] HCA 33, (1910) 11 CLR 1 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor & Isaacs JJ |
Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co (No 3) | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co and others |
Decided | 10 October 1910 |
Citations | [1910] HCA 53, (1910) 11 CLR 311 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs & Higgins JJ |