R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia
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 Boilermakers' case?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia,[1] known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.[2]
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | The Queen v Kirby, Dunphy, Ashburner and Metal Trades Employers Association; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia |
Decided | 2 March 1956 |
Citation(s) | [1956] HCA 10, (1956) 94 CLR 254 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar & Kitto JJ |
Dissent | Williams, Webb & Taylor JJ |
Attorney-General (Cth) v The Queen | |
---|---|
Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
Decided | 19 March 1957 |
Citation(s) | [1957] UKPC 4, [1957] AC 288; [1957] UKPCHCA 1, (1957) 95 CLR 529 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Viscount Kilmuir LC, Viscount Simonds, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Tucker, Lord Cohen, Lord Keith of Avonholm and Lord Somervell of Harrow. |
The High Court held that the judicial power of the Commonwealth could not be vested in a tribunal that also exercised non-judicial functions. It is a major case dealing with the separation of powers in Australian law.