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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment