constitutional law - corporations power
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Constitutional Law
Topic 8 Corporations Power
![Page 2: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Corporations Power
• Power conferred under s 51(xx) to make laws “with respect to foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth”
• Historically the power has sought to preserve the reserved state powers doctrine.
• However, incremental developments in the head of power now give it a broad scope.
![Page 3: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Huddert Parker v Moorehead
• Griffith CJ: Commonwealth could prohibit a trading or financial corporation formed within the Commonwealth from entering into any field of operation, but could not control certain operations reserved to the States.
• Isaacs J: stated that s 51(xx) only applies corporations already formed, not to new corporations created after federation.
![Page 4: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Huddert Parker v Moorehead
• Isaacs J: favoured a broad reading of s51(xx) but attempted to put limits a list of domestic corporations: scholastic, religious, and other types of corporations.
• Isaacs J: Cth should not be able to regulate internal management of corporations but only dealings between corporations and other persons.
![Page 5: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes (1971)
• Keith Edgar William Strickland brought charges against Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited and others for offences against s 43 of the Trade Practices Act 1965-1969 (Cth).
• Strickland argued that Rocla contravened s 42 of the act by not providing copies of the agreements to the then Trade Practice Commission.
• The defendant, Rocla, argued that the Trade Practices Act did not apply to it as a constitution under s 51(xx).
![Page 6: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Concrete Pipes case
• Barwick CJ: Overruled Huddart Parker and displaced by the Engineers Case (p 795;[485][488] of case).
• Trade Practices law could be regulated by a grant of power in s 51(xx). However, wording has to be framed carefully to apply the power to trade practices law [490].
![Page 7: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
• Barwick CJ and Menzies J judgments reject the notion that the corporations power should have boundaries or limits [490][511].
• However, the power should be dealt with on a case by case approach [490-491].
• Barwick CJ put some limitations down, stating that the power allowed for regulating and controlling trading and financial corporations [489-490].
Concrete Pipes case
![Page 8: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte St George County Council
• Issue was whether the St George Council was a “trading corporation” under s 51(xx).
• Introduces the “Purposes test” which is to determine the purposes for which the corporation was set up for.
• Activities test is raised but not adopted by the concurring majority of judges.
![Page 9: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
St George County Council case• Menzies, Gibbs and McTiernan JJ in separate
concurring judgments held that it was not a trading corporation as its original purpose was to provide the essential service of local government (p796 of text).
• Barwick CJ and Stephen J, dissenting, preferred the activities test and held that the Council was a trading corporation because of its substantial trading (p 796 text).
![Page 10: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Adamson’s Case (1979)
• Brian Ronald Adamson alleged breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Cth s 45(2) following the WA League’s failure to release him from his existing contract, on the basis that he not be restricted from supplying his services.
• Issue was whether the WA Football League and its clubs were sporting organisations or trading corporations under s 51(xx).
• WA League argued that they were not a corporation under s 51(xx).
![Page 11: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Adamson’s Case – Activities test
• Adamsons case established the activities test which is used to determine applicability of s 51(xx) (p 797).
• Mason J [235]-[236] (with Barwick CJ, Murphy and Jacobs JJ agreeing): that trade was the main activity and the sport was part of the main activity of making money.
• Stephen J (dissenting): Any trading activities undertaken by the football league were not sufficient to make them "trading corporations" so as to fall within the scope of s 51(xx).
![Page 12: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Adamson’s Case- other issues
• Case raised in obiter whether trading or financial activities needed to dominant or only substantial part of the corporation.
• Trading activities of the club and league were the dominant activities of the corporations. Issue of dominant or substantial did not need to be addresses.
• Mason J [234]: “whether a corporation is a trading corporation is a matter of fact and degree.”
![Page 13: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Re Ku-ring-Gai Co-operative Building Society (No 12) Ltd
• The applicants, Ku-ring-gai, sought declaratory relief, under the Trade Practices Act 1974, in respect of loans issued as part of their operations, that they did not breach exclusive dealing provisions in s 47 of the TPA.
• The applicants were co-operative terminating building societies incorporated under the Co-operation Act, 1923 (NSW). The object of each was the raising of a fund so as to make loans to its members.
• Issues included whether the societies were “financial corporations under s 51(xx).
![Page 14: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Ku-ring-Gai case
• Deane J [642](p 800): Kuringai Building society were held to be within definition of financial corporations based on their financing activities using the activities test.
• Applicant were formed to carry on a business of dealing in finance and in fact carried on such a business, and accordingly, were financial corporations within the meaning of the phrase as used in s 51 (xx).
![Page 15: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
State Superannuation Board of Victoria v Trade Practices Commission (1982)
• Issue of whether the State Superannuation Board of Victoria was captured by s 51(xx).
• Mason, Murphy and Deane JJ [305](p 800): Financial activities engaged in to provide superannuation made the Superannuation Board a financial corporation.
• Trading and financial activities are not mutually exclusive and can coexist.
![Page 16: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Fencott v Muller (1983) p 801
• Oakland Nominees Pty Ltd had not current activities. It was formed to facilitate a conveyancing transaction.
• Majority: Purposes test is still applicable where there are no activities have been engaged in.
• Referred to the corporation’s articles to establish its purpose and future activities.
![Page 17: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Actors Equity v Fontana (1982)
• The corporations power s 51(xx) could be used to restrict actions by picketers that caused harm to a corporation.
• The Court found that the provision was relevant as it was respect to activities with corporations.
• Gibbs CJ: A relatively narrow view of the scope of s 51(xx) as applicable to corporate activities directly related to constitutional corporations.
![Page 18: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983)
• Issues included whether the World Heritage (Property Conservation) Act was valid under s 51(xx) and (xxix); and
• Whether the Hydroelectric commission set up under the act was a trading corporation.
• The Commission’s connexion with the state government of Tasmania was also brought into question.
![Page 19: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983)
• Mason J: St George and original purpose test rejected. HEC and Tas link did not affect validity of s51(xx) to affect the HEC.
• Launceston case cited noting independent nature of the HEC.
• Policy role of the HEC to protect heritage. • Mason J [156]: Commission would sell electrical
power on a very large scale and therefore a trading corporation.
![Page 20: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983)
• (p 803) Trading activities of the Commission were less prominent that in St George.
• Superannuation case pointed out that trading activities need not be dominant activities.
• Gibbs CJ dissenting: HEC true character was a governmental or public body precluded it from being a trading corporation under 51(xx).
![Page 21: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (1995)
• Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) sought to enliven the Corporations power.
• The corporations power was held to not be able to regulate the activities of the corporation in so far as they related to parties one removed from the corporation.
![Page 22: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
New South Wales v Commonwealth (Workchoices Case) (2006)
• Majority: s 51(xx) extends at very least to the business functions and activities of constitutional corporations and business relationships; and
• The power extends to the persons by and through whom the corporations carry out those functions and activities and with whom they enter into business relationships.
![Page 23: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Workchoices (cont.)
• Majority [114]: cited Re Pacific Coal Pty Ltd case, Gaudron J: “s 51(xx) extends to activities, functions, relationship and the business of a corporation, the creation of rights and privileges of the corporation… and regulation of the conduct of employees and shareholders and other persons who can affect activities.”
![Page 24: Constitutional Law - Corporations power](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062705/5567f1b7d8b42aaf768b4a14/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Workchoices (cont.)
• Majority [103]: refer to general principles of interpretation (Grain Poole).
• Distinctive character test not adopted by majority (p 816).
• Kirby J (dissenting): raised the issue that the states governmental law making power would be diminished if s 51(xx) was broadly applied