ALEXANDER V. WALKER

ALEXANDER V. WALKER

The regulation is indistinguishable from that in Pidoto's case, which was upheld as valid; there is no evidence or authority supporting the argument that the Board is excluded from 'industry,' nor that Walker was not engaged in industry.

Parties
Appellant: Alexander; Respondent: Robbie; Respondent: Walker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 1944
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeals allowed

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander

Appellant

Robbie

Respondent

Walker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the regulation challenged is distinguishable from that in Pidoto's case
  2. 2 Whether a public utility such as the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board is excluded from the sphere of industry or industrial enterprise
  3. 3 Whether Walker was engaged in industry

Ratio Decidendi

The regulation is indistinguishable from that in Pidoto's case, which was upheld as valid; there is no evidence or authority supporting the argument that the Board is excluded from 'industry,' nor that Walker was not engaged in industry.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed

Orders

  • orders of Court of Quarter Sessions set aside
  • orders of the Magistrate restored