H V McKay Pty Ltd v Hunt [1926] HCA 36

H V McKay Pty Ltd v Hunt [1926] HCA 36

The State Wages Board determination, being inconsistent with the earlier Commonwealth award, is invalid to the extent of inconsistency under sec. 109 of the Constitution. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted for paying the wage prescribed by the Commonwealth award.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: H. V. McKay Proprietary Limited; Respondent/informant: William Hunt, Inspector of Factories and Shops
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
Inconsistency Between Commonwealth and State Laws, Minimum Wage, Industrial Awards and Determinations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. V. McKay Proprietary Limited

Appellant/defendant

William Hunt, Inspector of Factories and Shops

Respondent/informant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria

  1. 1 Whether a determination of a State Wages Board fixing a higher minimum wage is inconsistent with an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration fixing a lower minimum wage
  2. 2 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The State Wages Board determination, being inconsistent with the earlier Commonwealth award, is invalid to the extent of inconsistency under sec. 109 of the Constitution. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted for paying the wage prescribed by the Commonwealth award.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.

Orders

  • The conviction is quashed.