Subiaco Cricket Club was not despite some bar trade because the bar trade was

Subiaco cricket club was not despite some bar trade

This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 33 pages.

Subiaco Cricket Club was not, despite some bar trade, because the bar trade was quite insubstantial in the context of its overall activities.]oWestern Australian Football League:Adamson’s Case [The WAFL was engaged in promoting sport, charging transfer fees for the movement of players and charging entrance fees for matches. It was a trading corporation.]
Background image
oUniversity of Western Australia: Quickenden v O’Connor [At least 28% of the university’s revenue came from trading activities]oAustralian Red Cross andSocietyof the Prince Alfred Hospital: E v Australian Red Cross[Red Cross earned $2m/year from the sale of goods and the Hospital received $12/m from the government, $14m/year from patient fees, and $3.7m/year from business activities and both were therefore trading corporations.] oEtheridge Shire Council: Australian Workers’ Union v Etheridge Shire Council[The council was not a trading corporation as most of its ‘so-called’ trading activities (suchas those relating to tourism) were unprofitable.]oHydro-Electric Commission: Tasmanian Dam Case[The Hydro-Electric Commission was owned by the Tasmanian Government and sold electrical power in bulk and by retail on a very large scale. It was a trading corporation]St George County Council(1974) - CC formed as bodycorporate under LG Act to provide electricity for public good –but sold appliances at profit, and fixed prices in breach of lawIssue: The ‘essence of trade is buying and selling’, so the salesweretrading; is that enough to make it a ‘trading’ corp? Held:Gibbs & Menzies JJ, the “purposes” test: purposeof tradingquite secondary to CC’s main purpose of supplying electricity.Barwick CJ & Stephen J, the “activities” test: CC engaged intrading activities. McTiernan J – Act not intendedto apply tosuch bodies. So majority held CC not under Act, but split 2:2on Const point.][2] Scope of the power under s 51(xx)Work Choices Act andcaseModern Approach: relying on dictum of Gaudron J in Re Pacific Coal Pty Ltd: HC extended s 51(xx) to include othe regulation of the activities, functions, relationships and the business of a corporation described in that sub-section, othe creation of rights, and privileges belonging to such a corporation, othe imposition of obligations on it and, oin respect of those matters, to the regulation of the conduct of those through whom it acts, its employees andshareholders and, also, othe regulation of those whose conduct is or is capable of affecting its activities, functions, relationships or business.“Conclusion: anything trade or commerce, Cth has power to regulate under s 51(xx) and this can extended to trading corporations (Workchoices case)SEE PAGE 15 (4.2/4.3)EXTRA FROM HERE BELOW!!!!! Gradual dominance of theActivitiesTestMajorityAdamson- WAFL engaged in a continuing venture for profit & trade, trade not slight & incidental to other activitiesState Super Board- financial activities form significant part of overall activitiesTas Dam
Background image
Image of page 9

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 33 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture