Re The Judiciary Act 1903-1920

The matter before the High Court concerned the interpretation of a previous statement made by the Court in *In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts* (1921) 29 C.L.R. 257. The dispute arose from a submission made to the Privy Council in *Minister for Trading Concerns for the State of Western Australia v. Amalgamated Society of Engineers* (1923) A.C. 170, which relied on a passage from the earlier High Court decision. The present proceedings involved Knox C.J. delivering a statement on behalf of the majority of the Justices who had decided *In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts*.

The legal issue was whether the statement in *In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts* that sections 73 and 74 of the Constitution "deal with the appellate power of the High Court" supported the proposition that section 74 of the Constitution does not apply to decisions of the High Court in its original jurisdiction. The Court was required to clarify the intended meaning and scope of its prior pronouncement.

Knox C.J., on behalf of the majority, explained that the words used in the previous judgment were perhaps incautious but did not intend to affirm the proposition submitted to the Privy Council. The context of the earlier case involved the validity of Part XII of the Judiciary Act, which concerned the reference of constitutional questions. The Court had noted that the duty imposed by Part XII was not suggested to be within the appellate jurisdiction, rendering sections 73 (dealing with appeals to the High Court) and 74 (dealing with appeals to His Majesty in Council) irrelevant to that specific determination. Therefore, the statement was made in the context of excluding sections related to appeals from consideration, not to determine the applicability of section 74 to the High Court's original jurisdiction.