Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd and Others1
| Author | P. A. Mcnamara |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X7200500108 |
| Published date | 01 March 1972 |
| Date | 01 March 1972 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
CASE NOTES
STRICKLAND
v.
ROCLA
CONCRETE
PIPES
LTD
k,D
OTHERS!
Constitutional law -
Commonwealth
power
to
make
laws with respect
to foreign corporations
and
trading and financial corporations
formed
within the limits
of
the Commonwealth -Constitution section 51
(xx.)
-Binding nature
0/
earlier decisions
of
the Court -Severability
of
statutes -
Acts
Interpretation
Act
1901-1966
(eth)
section
15A.
Appeals from adecision of the Commonwealth Industrial
Court
unanimously dismissing charges laid against three defendants, the
present
respondents,
under
the
Trade
Practices
Act
1965-1969
(Crh) section
43.
The
respondents were charged for
that
each
of
them, being either
aforeign
corporation
or
a
trading
or
financial
corporation
formed
within
the
limits
of
the Common\vealth, was aparty to an agreenlent
made
on
11
April
1969
regulating the sale
and
supply
of
concrete
pipes in the State
of
Queensland;
and
that
particulars
of
that
agreement
\vere required by the Act Part Vto be lodged with the Commissioner
of
Trade
Practices
but
had
not
been
so lodged.
Both
the charges
and
the appeals \vere
heard
together.
The
resolution
of
these appeals presented
t\VO
lllain questions
to
the
Court
The first was the scope of Constitution section
51
(xx.):
the
po\ver
to
make
laws with respect
to
"Foreign
corporations
and
trading
or
financial corporations formed within
the
limits
of
the Common-
wealth" (hereinafter called "the corporations power"). This question
raised
the
subsidiary question whether
the
Court
would consider itself
bound
by
its former decision in HllddartJParker &Co.
Pty
Ltd
v.
Moorehead!- as
to
the
scope of section 51
(xx.).
The
second question
was whether
the
Act,
or
at
least
Parts
IV
and
V
of
it, was
supported
by
section
51
(xx.).
Scope
of
the Corporations Power
The
Court
was unanimous3in rejecting
the
narrow
interpretation
of
the corporations
power
laid down in the judgments
of
the majority
of
the
Court
in Moorehead's case.
In
that
case, the
Court
(Isaacs J. dis-
senting)
had
held invalid provisions
of
the
Australian
Industries
Preservation
Act
1906
(Cth)
which
operated
squarely
on
the
trading
operations
of
foreign corporations
and
of
trading
and
financial
cor-
porations formed within
the
limits of the Commonw·ealth.
The
short
1
(1971)
45 A.L.J.R. 485; [1972] A.L.R.
3.
High
Court
of
Australia; Barn'ick
C.l.,
McTiernan, Ivlenzies, Windeyer, O\ven, \Valsh
and
Gibbs
JJ.
2
(1909)
8C.L.R. 330.
345
A.L.J.R. 485, 489, 494, 498, 499, 500, 504.
133
To continue reading
Request your trial