On 26 February 1982, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia formally recognised the European Communities (EC) as a subject of public international law and granted accreditation to the Communities’ permanent delegation in Canberra. The delegation had been in place since April 1981. Australian representation in Brussels began in 1960 with a view to maintaining its Commonwealth tariff preference in the United Kingdom upon occasion that the British should decide to join the Common Market. Largely due to concern for the Commonwealth arrangements, the United Kingdom did not join the Common Market until 1973. At this point, the more developed Commonwealth nations were placed behind the Member States of the EC in the line of suppliers of the United Kingdom's import needs. Recognising the mutual desire to minimise the disturbance in an established trade channel, the then Vice-President for External Affairs of the EC Commission, Sir Christopher Soames, visited Canberra and arranged for regular high level consultations to be undertaken to ensure the smooth adaptation and continuation of Australia-EC trade.

In maintaining the distinction between capital and income first instituted by legislation nearly two centuries ago, the courts have occasionally faced intractable problems where pragmatism has necessarily triumphed over analysis. Sir Owen Dixon's famous Sun Newspapers test for distinguishing between revenue and capital outgoings is one example, where in reality a number of unweighted considerations were suggested, with but vague illustrations for their application. The proper manner of apportioning outgoings, and the role of purpose and intention, are others. Yet a fourth, and the subject of this paper is the characterisation of receipts derived from the sale or loss of intangible rights.

In a federal system there is a constant need to resolve problems created by conflicting provisions of laws enacted by. the federal legislature and those enacted by a state or provincial legislature. In the case of a unitary system it is merely the question of a later statute conflicting with an earlier statute enacted by the same legislature, and in such an instance, the conflict is resolved by regarding the earlier law as having been impliedly repealed by the later law.

In the Australian federal system the conflict is resolved by resorting to the express provisions of s 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which reads as follows:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Industrial Law (Cth) – Restraint of State industrial commission jurisdiction – Validity of restraining order – Necessity to specify what matter is removed from State jurisdiction – Requirement of interstate industrial dispute for valid restraining order – Relationship between matter and parties – Validity of empowering Commonwealth provision – Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) s 66

Industrial law – Victorian award relating to notification and consultation by employers in relation to proposed technological change – Applicability of principles under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) – Current status of traditional dichotomy between industrial matters and managerial prerogative – Commercial Clerks Award Clause 39 – Industrial Relations Act 1979 (Vic) ss 3(1), 34(1) – Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)