Bertolini v Gianini

[1905] HCA 69

HIGH COURT

[1906.

H. C. OF A.

m atte r determ ined by th e C ourt of A rb itra tio n was in part at

1905.

least a p relim inary m atte r of fact.

I f i t was pu rely a matter of

W ESTEENfac t clearly no appeal lies.

I f i t was a m ixed question of fact

Ac.str.\lian

Am.algam- and law it is very doubtfu l w hether an appeal lies.

I f the Court

ATED Society

OF R ailway declined to en te rta in certain m atte rs upon an erroneous vie\t of

E mployes

U nion of

the law , possibly m andam us will lie, b u t th e tim e for determining

W orkers

th a t question has no t arrived.

I t is, we th in k , extremely im­

V.

Commissioner

OF Railivays

probable th a t the C ourt has come, or will come, to the conclusion,

FOR

W estern

Australia.as a m a tte r of law, th a t an agreem ent betw een the Commissioner

of R ailw ays and a small body of em ployes is conclusive evidence th a t there is no d ispute betw een the Commissioner of Railways and the whole body of employes. I f the C ourt does so decide, then it will be tim e enough to consider w hether the Supreme C ourt can in terfere. A t p resen t we see no reason to gran t special leave to appeal.

Special leave to appeal refused.

Solicitors, Norm an K. E w ing & Co., Perth .

B. L.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

B E R T O L IN I

Appellant;

P l a in t if f ,

G IA N IN I . .

R e .spondent.

D e f e n d a n t ,

H. C. OF A.

ON APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

1905.WESTERN AUSTRALIA

(M c M il l a n J.)

P e r t h ,

The case tu rn ed solely on questions of fact.

Oct. P2, IS.The ju d g m en t of th e Suprem e C ourt of

W estern Australia

Griffith C .J., (17th A pril, 1905), was affirmed.

Barton and

O’Connor

JJ .

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors, for appellan t, Harney & Harney.

Solicitors, for respondent. Sm ith & Lavan.

H. E. M.