Bank Officials' Association (South Australian Branch) v Savings Bank of South Australia Prosecutor [1923] HCA 25

Gas Sau leave ae 276 HIGH COURT {19 23. [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] THE BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION ) pee _ i j APreLianr (SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BRANCH) F Pr DerreNDANT, AND H.c.or A. THE SAVINGS BANK OF SOUTH AOE onal 923, ES uae IERALTA,..").- socy'sdigtvs Cesstiaetiel' wih oleae MELBouRNE, Prosecutor, Mar. 6, 7,8; June 6. - ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF lesen, Higginn, SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Rich and

Discd/Fot - Dist Total

Starke JJ.

Industrial Arbitration—Industrial Court of South Australia—Jurisdiction—Savit Bank of South Australia—Statute—Interpretation—Generalia specialibus non derogant—Savings Bank Act 1875 (S.A.) (38 & 39 Vict. No. 22), secs. 2, 7-13, 16, 18, 48 Industrial Code 1920 (S.A.) (11 Geo. V. No. 1453), secs. 3, 5, 17, 34, 43, 47, 48, 51, 52, 99, 104,

Held, by Knox Isaacs and Rich JJ. (Starke J. dissenting), that Savings Bank Act 1875 (S.A.), which regulates the relationship between Savings Bank of South Australia and its employees, is special legislation, the Industrial Code 1920 (S.A.), which regulates the relationship bety employers and employees generally (with immaterial exceptions), is general

latter Act is not to be construed so as to derogate from, repeal or alter t provisions of the former Act concerning the relationship which it regulates.

Per Higgins J.:—The Industrial Code 1920 contains nothing that is repugnant

merely one of several presumptions ; and the Industrial Code is obviously meant to aid all banking businesses.

32 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

Held, therefore, by Knox C.J., Isaacs and Rich JJ. (Higgins and Starke JS. dissenting), that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction under the thie Code 1920 to entertain a claim by an association of officers of the Bank in respect of the salaries and conditions of service of those offic

Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia Ex parte Savings Bank of South Australia, (1921) S.A.