R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration [1914] HCA 15

Cons David

Jones Finance bed mestmenis Workers Kody

& In ¥.

Tegaton, == Fay * Rest Che ina case of much difficulty and complexity. | Nonthem Fol Northem

REmitory of 'Norte Se

Ausirahed— Temtory of if

Gale eet, ae Ss ch tin a

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] THE KING AGAINST

54 HIGH COURT

age agreements in question: the policy pursued is in no way f jOUNCIL. RS: c shadowed or contemplated in either agreement, nor was it

1913. —— necessary outcome of either agreement. It must not, howe

Gaerah be supposed that their Lordships view with approval everything: or tHe which was done in pursuance of this policy.

ee In their Lordships' opinion the decision appealed against i right, first, because so far as the Crown relied upon sec. 4 (1) (a) ADELAIDE

Sreausmr and sec. 7 of the Act, there was no evidence (at any rate no satis ae factory evidence) of any sinister intention on the part of eitl colliery proprietors or shipping companies ; and secondly, because so far as the Crown relied on sec. 10 there was no evidence (at any rate no sufficient evidence) of injury to the public.

Their Lordships desire, in conclusion, to acknowledge the assistance which they have received from counsel on both side

Foll

THE COMMON WEALTH COURT OF CONCILIATION 4 ARBITRATION anp THE PRESIDENT THEREOF anpD THE AUSTRALIAN TRAMWAY EMPLOYEE!

ASSOCIATION. ;

LIMITED. Ex parte THE MUNICIPAL TRAMWAYS_ TRUS!

H.C. or A. i914, ADELAIDE. oe

Mexzournz, (No. 1.

March 4, 5, Jurisdiction of High Court—Prohibition—Original or appellate jurisdi

CHP Re 24, Officer of Commonwealth" —Judicial officer—President of Commonwea : Court of Conciliation and Arbitration—Binding effect of prior decisions Braet teh High Court—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), sees. 51 (xxxv.), 71,73, Gavan Duffy, (v.)—Commonwealth Concilianon and Arbitration Act 1904-1911 (No. lj