Attorney-General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW

Last updated

Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW
(Union Label case)
Coat of arms of Australia (1908-1912).svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameAttorney-General (NSW) ex rel. Tooth & Co Ltd and ors v Brewery Employees' Union of NSW
Decided8 August 1908
Citation(s) [1908] HCA 94, (1908) 6 CLR 469
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs and Higgins JJ

Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW, [1] commonly known as the Union Label case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 8 August 1908. The case was significant in relation to the endorsement by the majority of the court of the reserved powers doctrine and as the first case to consider the scope of the power of the Commonwealth regarding trade marks. [2] It also addressed who could challenge a law as unconstitutional. There was a strong division in the Court between the original members , Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ and the two newly appointed justices, Isaacs and Higgins JJ.

Contents

Background

The case concerned the use of union labels to indicate that goods were produced by members of a union. Isaac Isaacs, the then Attorney-General, supported the Trade Marks Bill in parliament, describing the union label as a guarantee of wholesomeness, in respect of the wages, hours of labour, and health requirements that applied to the manufacture of the goods. [3] H.B. Higgins, then a member of the House of Representatives, similarly spoke in support of the union label. [4] The Trade Marks Act 1905 provided that an employer could use the union label if there was a closed shop or if the union agreed. [5]

The Brewery Employees Union of NSW registered a union label as a trade mark. The Attorney-General (NSW) commenced proceedings in the High Court on behalf of four brewing companies in NSW: Tooth & Co., Toohey and Co., the Maitland Brewing Company, [n 1] and the Castlemaine Brewery and Wood Brothers Company. [n 2] [6] The brewing companies argued that some people would stop buying their beer if the union label was used and other people would stop buying their beer if the union label was not used and that union label would make it difficult for them to employ workmen who were not members of the union. [7]

The case considered three issues:

Decision

Each member of the Court held that the Court would not decide a constitutional question unless it was necessary to do so. [8] The majority, Griffiths CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ held that Attorney-General for a State had standing to commence proceedings in relation to the constitution and that part of the Trade Marks Act 1905 was invalid, both because of the reserved powers doctrine and because the union label was not a trade mark within the meaning of the Constitution. Isaacs J agreed that the Attorney-General had standing to commence the proceedings, but dissented on the basis that the union label was a trade mark and that the trade marks power was not limited by the doctrine of reserved powers. [9] Higgins J dissented on each ground, holding that the Attorney-General did not have standing, that the union label was a trade mark and that the trade marks power was not limited by the doctrine of reserved powers. [10]

Standing

The majority, Griffiths CJ, Barton, O'Connor and Isaacs JJ settled the question that the Attorney-General of a State can maintain an action against the Commonwealth to obtain a declaration and consequential relief against the Commonwealth's ultra vires activity.

Griffiths CJ held that:

The first condition of any litigation in a Court of Justice is that there should be a competent plaintiff, i.e., a person who has a direct material interest in the determination of the question sought to be decided. The Court will not decide abstract questions, nor will it decide any question except when raised by some person entitled by reason of his interest to claim a decision. [11]

O'Connor J gave a wider consideration to the role of the several Attorneys-General of the States and of the Commonwealth, holding that the Attorney-General represented not just the State as a legal entity but the people of that State generally:

In a unitary form of government, as there is only one community and one public which the Attorney-General represents, the question which has now been raised cannot arise. It is impossible, therefore, that there can be any decision either in England or in any of the Australian Colonies before Federation exactly in point. But it seems to me that in the working out of the federal system established by the Australian Constitution an extension of the principle is essential. [12]

Reserved powers

The majority, Griffiths CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ held that the power with respect to "trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States", [2] does not extend to the internal trade and commerce of a State. The intention of the Constitution was that the power to legislate as to internal trade and commerce was reserved to the States, to the exclusion of the Commonwealth as if section 51(i) contained words prohibiting the exercise of such powers by the Commonwealth. [13]

Meaning of trade mark

The majority held that a union label was not a trade mark within the meaning of the Constitution in that the constitutional term should be of the technical meaning that it had held in 1900. [14]

Griffith CJ said that in 1900 trade marks did not have a signification that embraced union labels in that the a union label did not distinguish the goods made by any particular person or persons from goods manufactured by other persons. [15]

Barton J held that a trade mark was

A mark which is placed on goods (1) to distinguish them as the goods of the person who uses the mark; (2) exercising dominion over the goods, whether he has absolute ownership or only a contractual right to the possession; (3) in the course of his trade; and (4) exercising a right to the exclusive use of the mark. [16]

O'Connor J held that there were two essential elements of a trade mark, (1) that the proprietor of a trade mark must have some trade or business connection with the goods and (2) the mark must be capable of distinguishing the particular goods from other goods of a like character. [17] The union had no business connection with the goods to which the union label was to be affixed and the mark made no distinction as to the manufacture of the goods. [18]

Higgins J held that "The usage in 1900 [of the term trade marks] gives us the central type [of legislative power conferred]; it does not give us the circumference of the power. To find the circumference of the power, we take as a centre the thing named—trade marks—with the meaning as in 1900; but it is a mistake to treat the centre as the radius." [10] Higgins J also held that

... although we are to interpret the words of the Constitution on the same principles of interpretation as we apply to any ordinary law, these very principles of interpretation compel us to take into account the nature and scope of the Act that we are interpreting – to remember that it is a Constitution, a mechanism under which laws are to be made, and not a mere Act which declares what the law is to be. [19]

Subsequent consideration

The decision as to the competence of the Attorney-General of a State to sue the Commonwealth to protect the public from the operation of an invalid federal law was the basis for the development of the modern constitutional doctrine of standing. [20]

The decision continues to be cited as authority for the long settled practice of the High Court to decline to answer unnecessary constitutional questions. [21]

The reserved powers doctrine did not have an enduring legacy. By 1920 each member of the majority had left the court. [n 3] The reserved powers doctrine was rejected by the High Court in the landmark Engineers' case in 1920. [22]

For over three-quarters of a century the Union Label case remained the only decision of the High Court which directly addressed the validity of a law said to have been made under section 51(xviii). However, the narrow approach adopted in that case to the concept of a trade mark was not reflected in decisions of the High Court in the latter part of the 20th century. [23]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The Maitland Brewing Company was acquired by Tooth & Co in 1913, "Maitland Brewing Co". The Sunday Times . 2 November 1913. p. 2 – via National Library of Australia.
  2. ↑ The Castlemaine Brewery and Wood Brothers Company was unrelated to the brewery company that became Castlemaine Perkins or the Castlemaine Brewery, WA. The company was acquired by Tooth & Co in 1921 "Tooth-Castlemaine Wood". The Sydney Morning Herald . 18 February 1921. p. 8 – via National Library of Australia..
  3. ↑ O'Connor J died in 1912, Griffith CJ retired in 1919 and Barton J died in 1920.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within the Constitution of Australia and other statutues.

The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

<i>DEmden v Pedder</i>

D'Emden v Pedder was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws.

<i>Attorney-General (Vic) ex rel Dale v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth, commonly known as the "First Pharmaceutical Benefits case", was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under section 81 of the Constitution of Australia, to take and spend money by legislation, in this case to fund reduced prices for prescription medicines.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

<i>Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to the Commonwealth Government's power to make laws for the conciliation and arbitration of interstate industrial disputes under subsection 51(xxxv) of the Australian Constitution and the incidental power under subsection 51(xxxix), but in reaching a decision set principles on matters of statutory interpretation affecting the Constitution.

<i>Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd</i> 1918 judgement in Australian law

Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1918 regarding judicial power of the Commonwealth which established that Chapter III of the Constitution required judges to be appointed for life to a specific court, subject only to the removal provisions in the constitution. The majority of the High Court held that because the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was appointed for seven years and not life as required by s 72 of the Constitution, the Arbitration Court could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth.

<i>Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead</i> Australian constitutional law case

Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead is a leading decision by the High Court of Australia that dealt with two issues under the Australian Constitution, the identification and extent of judicial power that is vested in the courts and the corporations power of the Parliament. The Court unanimously held that the inquiry provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 were not an exercise of judicial power. The judgement of Griffith CJ in particular continues to be cited in relation to its examination of the identification and extent of judicial power. The court, however, divided on the proper approach to the corporations power. The majority, Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, strongly influenced by the now discredited doctrine of reserved State powers, held that the corporations power was to be construed narrowly because the trade and commerce power did not include intrastate trade and commerce. While the reserved powers doctrine was unambiguously rejected by the High Court in 1920, Huddart, Parker was not formally overruled by the High Court until Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971).

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.

<i>Farey v Burvett</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Farey v Burvett, is an early High Court of Australia case concerning the extent of the defence power of the Commonwealth. The majority of the Court took an expansive view of the defence power in a time of war, holding that the defence power extended to fixing the maximum price for bread. The Court adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power which emphasised the purpose of the legislation, the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter. As the law fell within a Commonwealth power, whether the law was necessary or appropriate for the defence of Australia was a matter for Parliament.

<i>Deakin v Webb</i>

Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.

<i>R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP, was an early decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in which the High Court controversially, granted prohibition against the Arbitration Court to prevent it from enforcing aspects of an industrial award. The High Court held that the Arbitration Court had gone beyond settling the dispute that had been submitted to it and in doing so had made a jurisdictional error.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd</i> Landmark Australian court case

Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd, commonly known as the Woodworkers case or the Sawmillers case was a decision of the High Court of Australia in 1909 concerning the question whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. The High Court was divided 2:2 and thus the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed, in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority. Griffith CJ, O'Connor J agreeing, held that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with the minimum wages fixed by a Wages Board under a State law.

<i>SS Kalibia v Wilson</i>

SS Kalibia v Wilson, was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping.

<i>Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead was the last of a series of cases in which members of a cartel, described as the "Coal Vend" were prosecuted under the Australian Industries Preservation Act. The majority of the High Court held that the investigation power was spent once a prosecution had commenced and that under the Act, a corporation could not be required to answer questions. While the decision was based on the wording of the specific legislation, its ongoing significance is its foundation for the requirement that the government act as a model litigant.

References

  1. ↑ Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW (Union Label case) [1908] HCA 94 , (1908) 6 CLR 469.
  2. 1 2 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (Cth) s 51
  3. ↑ Isaac Isaacs, Attorney-General (2 August 1905). "Trade Marks Bill 1905 Second Reading Speech" (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. p. 505.
  4. ↑ H.B. Higgins, member for Northern Melbourne (5 December 1905). "Trade Marks Bill 1905" (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. p. 6198.
  5. ↑ s 74(2) "Trade Marks Act 1905". Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 7 August 2016..
  6. ↑ "The Union Label Case". The Advertiser . South Australia. 31 March 1908. p. 7. Retrieved 7 August 2016– via National Library of Australia.
  7. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at pp. 473–4.
  8. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at pp. 491–492 per Griffith CJ, pp. 553–554 per Isaacs J pp. 590 per Higgins J.
  9. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 589 per Isaacs J.
  10. 1 2 Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 610 per Higgins J.
  11. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 501 per Grifiths CJ.
  12. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at pp. 552–3 per O'Connor J
  13. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at pp. 502–3 per Grifiths CJ, pp. 529–30 per Barton J and p. 532 per O'Connor.
  14. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 518 per Grifiths CJ, p. 530 per Barton J and p. 540-1 per O'Connor.
  15. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 514 per Griffith CJ.
  16. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 525 per Barton J.
  17. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 540 per O'Connor J.
  18. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 542-3 per O'Connor J.
  19. ↑ Union Label case (1908) 6 CLR 469 at p. 611-2 per Higgins J.
  20. ↑ Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd [2000] HCA 11 , (2000) 200 CLR 591 at [101] per Gummow J.
  21. ↑ see for example Wurridjal v The Commonwealth of Australia [2009] HCA 2 , (2009) 237 CLR 309 at [355] per Crennan J.
  22. ↑ Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. (Engineers' case) [1920] HCA 54 , (1908) 28 CLR 129.
  23. ↑ See for example Davis v Commonwealth [1988] HCA 63 , (1988) 166 CLR 79 at [23].
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.