Clyde Engineering Company Limited v Cowburn [1926] HCA 6

Clyde Engineering Company Limited v Cowburn [1926] HCA 6

When an award has been made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration under the relevant Commonwealth Act, a State Parliament cannot alter the terms of that award or impose inconsistent rights or obligations on the parties. The test for inconsistency is not simply whether both laws can be obeyed, but whether the State law alters, detracts from, or impairs the operation of the Federal award or law. Here, s 12 and s 13 (and s 6 to the extent it applies to Federal awards) of the Forty-four Hours Week Act 1925 (NSW) are inconsistent with the Commonwealth law and the award, and are therefore invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

Parties
Appellant, Defendant: Clyde Engineering Company Limited; Respondent, Plaintiff: John William Cowburn; Appellant, Defendant: Metters Limited; Respondent, Informant: Pickard; Appellant, Defendant: Lever Brothers Limited; Commonwealth of Australia (Intervening); State of New South Wales (Intervening)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions and Chief Industrial Magistrate
Outcome
Appeals allowed (majority); orders and convictions below set aside.
Legal Topics
Inconsistency of Laws (s 109 Constitution), Federal and State Industrial Relations, Validity of State Legislation, Interpretation of Federal Awards, Minimum Wage, Maximum Working Hours
Constitutional Law Industrial Law Inconsistency of Laws (s 109 Constitution) Federal and State Industrial Relations Validity of State Legislation Interpretation of Federal Awards Minimum Wage Maximum Working Hours

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clyde Engineering Company Limited

Appellant, Defendant

John William Cowburn

Respondent, Plaintiff

Metters Limited

Appellant, Defendant

Pickard

Respondent, Informant

Lever Brothers Limited

Appellant, Defendant

Commonwealth of Australia (Intervening)

State of New South Wales (Intervening)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions and Chief Industrial Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether State Act is inconsistent with Commonwealth law under s 109 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether State can impose additional obligations or vary Federal awards
  3. 3 Test for inconsistency between Federal and State laws

Ratio Decidendi

When an award has been made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration under the relevant Commonwealth Act, a State Parliament cannot alter the terms of that award or impose inconsistent rights or obligations on the parties. The test for inconsistency is not simply whether both laws can be obeyed, but whether the State law alters, detracts from, or impairs the operation of the Federal award or law. Here, s 12 and s 13 (and s 6 to the extent it applies to Federal awards) of the Forty-four Hours Week Act 1925 (NSW) are inconsistent with the Commonwealth law and the award, and are therefore invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed (majority); orders and convictions below set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order appealed from discharged.