Street v Queensland Bar Association & Ors; Street v Queensland Bar Association & Ors; In the Matter of Robertson

These proceedings before the High Court of Australia involved two separate applications, one by Alexander Whistler Street and another concerning Timothy Frank Robertson, both brought against the Queensland Bar Association, the Queensland Barristers Board, and the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland. The core dispute revolved around the admission of barristers to practice in Queensland and the interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to trade and commerce, particularly in the context of professional services.

The legal issues before the Court included the identification of interstate "intercourse" for the purposes of constitutional law, and whether the practice of a barrister constitutes "trade and commerce" within the meaning of the Australian Constitution. The applicants sought to challenge the existing rules and practices governing the admission of barristers, suggesting they might impose undue burdens on interstate movement or professional practice.

The Court considered historical definitions of "trade" and "commerce," referencing Samuel Johnson's dictionary and early case law. The submissions explored the distinction between a primary meaning of "trade" as trafficking or exchange of goods, which has evolved into the modern concept of commerce, and a secondary meaning relating to occupation or employment, distinct from liberal arts or learned professions. This distinction was central to arguments about whether the professional activities of barristers fell within the constitutional definition of trade and commerce.