ARBITRATION LAW.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2773, 31 March 1910, Page 5

ARBITRATION LAW.

CABLE NEWS.)

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT, j United Press Association —Copyrigd SYDNEY,March 30. 1 Important points of arbitration lam has been decided by the High Court). The question of law submitted for del i termination was whether, under constitution, it was competent for thef Commonwealth .Court of Conciliation! and Arbitration to make any award! which is inconsistent with certain 1 awaV[s or determinations of State Wages boards. The contention was set up than, in making an award in a dispute extending beyond the limits of a state, the president of the Arbitration Court was not l bpund by any State law for the regulation v pf industry, but might prescribe whatever he thought necessary in order to bring about an effectual settlement. The Chief Justice said that- arbitration me.'St primarily determination by a ti nnal which was not an ordinary courtyof justice bound to administer the strict, rules of common or statute law, but a tribunal selected by the parties to a controversy, to which both submitted themselves and by whose determination they agreed to be bound. The efficiency of ail award avas derived from the agreement of submission, although statutory provisions for its enforcement were now commonly adopted, the foundation of the authority of arbitrators was the consensual agreement of the parties. In the course of time the meaning had been extended so as to include determination by arbiters, some of ylicim were not necessarily the free choice of the parties, but’this difference in the mode of choice did not alter the fundamental notion of the functions of an arbiter, which was to make a determination that the . parties were bound to obey. It followed that whatever the 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 the tribunal. These conclusions were incontrovertible, and indeed agreed. There was no controversy as far as regarded an arbitration tribunal lawfully established within any civilised state. By a majority the Court answered the question in the negative.