PICKARD V. BUZACOTT AND CO LTD. 5/1922

PICKARD V. BUZACOTT AND CO LTD. 5/1922

On the evidence accepted by the Magistrate, the defendant's actions were not for the purpose of compelling acceptance of new terms by employees, but to save the business from ruin; therefore, there ought not to be a conviction.

Parties
Appellant: the complainant; Respondent: the defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 1923
Procedural Posture
Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

the complainant

Appellant

the defendant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant contravened the provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1920 by closing its place of employment, refusing to give work, or suspending work to compel employees to accept lesser wages and longer hours.

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence accepted by the Magistrate, the defendant's actions were not for the purpose of compelling acceptance of new terms by employees, but to save the business from ruin; therefore, there ought not to be a conviction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.