Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Co Ltd (No 1) [1913] HCA 76

16 C.L.B.] OF AUSTRALIA. 591

which have just been delivered, and have nothing to add. I agree H. ©. or A.

that the appeal should be allowed. mis

Mrppieton Appeal allowed. Order appealed from dis- pee charged with costs. Order of the County TRAMWAY

AND Court Judge refusing a new trial, and Ouxrwus Co.

verdict and judgment in that Court on the ae trial, restored. Respondent company to pay costs of appeal. Solicitors, for the appellant, A. EZ. Jones. Solicitors, for the respondents, Malleson, Stewart, Stawell & Nankivell. ae B.L. Feney — Besrdayoldy Rire , Eot tail Ais BERD (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.} THE MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD OF Nugent Ae ee eS ad AND H. C. or A. THE NEWCASTLE AND HUNTER RIVER 1913. STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. AND OTHERS J RESPONDENTS. —— Metnourne, Ji 6, 9, 10, (No. 1] 11,12, 13, 16, 28, 25, 26.

Industral Arbitration—Case stated by President of Commonwealth Court op Con- gyoxny, ciliation and Arbitration—Question arising in the proceeding—Propriety of gent, 4, President sitting on determination of question—Question of law—Opinion of Barton A.C.3 President—Facts to be stated in case—Inferences of fact—Jurisdiction of Com- esses, monwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration—Threatened, impending or Gavan Duty,

probable dispute—Power to arbitrate—Conference— Parties not summoned—The "Ricks"

H.C. or A. 1913.

—

MERCHANT EB

Servi Gurtp or AUSTRAL-

ASTA v. Neweastre AND HuNTER RIVER SreaMsHIP Co. Len, [No. 1.]

HIGH COURT [1913.

Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), sec. 51 (xxxv.)—Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1911 (No. 13 of 1904—No. 6 of 1911), secs. 4, 16, 16A, 19, 31.

The President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration having, for the purpose of referring to that Court a matter which has come before him on a conference convened by him under sec. 164 of the Common- wealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1911, decided that an industrial dispute existe, the question whether an industrial dispute exists may never- theless, on the hearing of the matter so referred, be a " question arising in the proceeding," within the meaning of sec. 31 (2) of that Act, upon which the President may state a case for the opinion of the High Court.