ARBITRATION LAW.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13695, 31 March 1910, Page 7

ARBITRATION LAW.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION-

United Press Association— By Electric TclegTaph— Copyright. (Received March 30th, 10.10 p.m.) SYDNEY, March 30. An important point in the Arbitration law has been decided by the High Court. The ouestion of law submitted fcr the determination of the Court were whether, under the Constitution it Mas competent for the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to make any award which was inconsistent with certain awards or determinations of the State Wages Beards. The contention was set up that, in making an award in a dispute extending beyond the limits of a State. th_ --resident of the Arbitration Court was not bound by any State law regulating a particular industry, but might prescribe whatever he thought was necessary in order to bring about an effectual settlement.

The Chief Justice said that arbitration meant, primarily, a determination by a tribunal which was not an ordinary Court of Justice, bound to administer tho strict rules of common statute law, but a tribunal selected by the parties to a controversy to which both submitted themselves, and by whese determination they agreed to be bound. The efficacy of an award was derived from tho agreement of submission, although statutory provisions for its enforcement wero now commonly adopted. The foundation of tbo authority of the arbitrators was the consensual agreement of tho parties. In th© course of time the meaning had been extended so as to include a determination by the arbiters, some of whom were necessarily the free choice of th© parties. But this difference in th© mode of choice did not alter the fundamental principle of the functions of an arbiter, which was to make a determination that the parties wero bound to obey. It followed that whatever parties could lawfully agree to do, they might be ordered to do, and whatever they could not lawfully agree to do they could not be ordered to do by a tribunal. These conclusions were incontrovertible, and indeed were riot controverted as far as any arbitration tribunal lawfully establised within any civilised State was concerned.

By a majority the Court answered the question in th© negative.