![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg/640px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd,[1] 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,[2] 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.
Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | High Court of Australia |
Decided | 3 September 1971 |
Citations | [1971] HCA 40, (1971) 124 CLR 468 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh and Gibbs JJ |
Case opinions | |
(5:2) The Trade Practices Act 1965 was incapable of being read down to be within Commonwealth legislative power on the basis that s 7, the "reading down" provision, required the Court to legislate rather than read down the law. The Court unanimously agreed that the restrictions placed over Commonwealth power to regulate constitutional corporations in Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead have been overturned, and the Commonwealth may regulate trading activities of trading corporations (per Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh & Gibbs JJ) | |
Laws applied | |
This case overturned a previous ruling | |
Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36, (1909) 8 CLR 330 |
The width of this power was later considered again in the cases of Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films,[3] Commonwealth v Tasmania (the Tasmanian Dam Case),[4] Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner,[5] and New South Wales v Commonwealth (the WorkChoices Case).[6]