HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

                                            Australian Railways Union

                                                           Vs.

                                            Victorian Railways Commr.

                            (Isaacs C.J., Gavan Duffy, Rich, Starke and Dixon JJ.)

                                                  8 December 1930

Isaacs C.J.

I am of opinion that, consistently with the established practice of this Court, and having regard to
the views already expressed and on record, there is no need, for the purpose of determining the
questions submitted to us, for a fresh expression of opinion by the Court in the present case as to the
constitutional or statutory validity of the awards. As to the validity of sec. 33, which involves the
validity of sec. 34 of the Act, the latter being the Conciliation Committee's section, the majority of
my learned brethren consider it permissible at this stage to state their conclusions as to the validity
of sec. 33, and, consequently, also as to sec. 34. I therefore feel called upon to state my own. I am
clearly and unhesitatingly of opinion that those sections are intrinsically valid, and at the least, by
reason of sec. 3 of the Acts Interpretation Act of 1930 (recently proclaimed), are valid to a sufficient
extent to enable the Court to arrive at a definite determination in this matter. I shall be prepared to
state my reasons at the earliest opportunity.

Gavan Duffy J.

My brothers Rich, Starke and Dixon have reached the definite conclusion that sec. 33 of the
Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1930 is void. I am disposed to adopt the
same view, but do not desire to express any final opinion at present. We are all of opinion, however,
that the precise questions submitted by the summons cannot be answered without pronouncing upon
the questions whether the awards of 25th March 1930, with which the order of the Court of
Conciliation and Arbitration deals, were authorized by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-
1929 and the Constitution, and are valid. This question the members of the Court, other than the
Chief Justice, are not prepared to pronounce upon without argument. Unless one or other of the
parties, within ten days, notifies the Principal Registrar of its desire that this question be argued, the
Court will dispose of the summons without answering specifically the questions which it contains.
The members of the Court will, in the meantime, defer giving reasons for their opinions upon the
validity of sec. 33.

The question came on to be argued at Sydney on 19th November 1930 and subsequent days. There
was no appearance by or on behalf of the Victorian Railways Commissioners, but an application for
leave to appear was made on behalf of the States of Victoria and South Australia.

Questions answered accordingly.

Solicitors for the Australian Railways Union, Maurice Blackburn & Tredinnick.
Solicitor for the Commonwealth, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.
Solicitors for the Railway Commissioners, Moule, Hamilton & Derham.
Solicitor for the State of Victoria and the State of South Australia, F. G. Menzies, Crown Solicitor
for Victoria.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1930/52.html

</html</htm