Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v Gair

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd sought an ex parte injunction from the High Court of Australia to restrain the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland and other parliamentary officers, as well as members of the State cabinet, from presenting a Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly for Royal assent. The applicant argued that the Bill contained self-operating provisions that would prejudice its inter-State hauling business by imposing an absolute prohibition on inter-State trade until a license fee was determined by state officials. The applicant contended that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable damage and that the form of the orders sought mirrored those granted in *Trethowan v. Peden*.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain the presentation of a Bill for Royal assent, particularly in light of the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of inter-State trade. The court was also required to consider the precedent set by *Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Trethowan* and *Trethowan v. Peden* regarding the availability of such injunctive relief.

Dixon C.J. stated that applications for injunctions to restrain the presentation of a Bill for Royal assent are exceptional and should not be granted. While acknowledging the applicant's argument based on *Trethowan's Case*, he expressed personal doubts about the correctness of that decision, particularly concerning its application to Bills with self-operating provisions. However, he indicated that if the Bill were to receive assent and the applicant could establish a prima facie case of irreparable damage, the Court would not hesitate to intervene with appropriate interlocutory relief, treating such a matter as urgent. McTiernan J. agreed with the Chief Justice's observations regarding *Trethowan's Case* but clarified that the refusal of the current application did not prejudice the ultimate determination of the correctness of the New South Wales Supreme Court's judgments in that case.

The application for an injunction was refused.