Ingham v Hie Lee [1912] HCA 66

Ingham v Hie Lee [1912] HCA 66

The word 'work' in section 42 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 (Vict.) refers to 'work at factory work'—that is, work related to the business of the factory. Therefore, section 42 does not apply to a Chinese person ironing his own shirt for personal reasons during prohibited hours in a Chinese laundry, even though the premises are a 'factory.'

Parties
Appellant: Ingham; Respondent: Hie Lee
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Factories and Shops, Interpretation of Statutes, Limitation of Hours of Labour
Industrial Law Factories and Shops Interpretation of Statutes Limitation of Hours of Labour

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ingham

Appellant

Hie Lee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of 'work' in section 42 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 (Vict.)?
  2. 2 Does section 42 prohibit a Chinese person from ironing his own shirt during prohibited hours in a Chinese laundry classified as a factory?

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'work' in section 42 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 (Vict.) refers to 'work at factory work'—that is, work related to the business of the factory. Therefore, section 42 does not apply to a Chinese person ironing his own shirt for personal reasons during prohibited hours in a Chinese laundry, even though the premises are a 'factory.'

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs