Higgins, then a member of the House of Representatives, similarly spoke in support of the union label.

[8] The majority, Griffiths CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ held that Attorney-General for a State had standing to commence proceedings in relation to the constitution and that part of the Trade Marks Act 1905 was invalid, both because of the reserved powers doctrine and because the union label was not a trade mark within the meaning of the Constitution.

Griffiths CJ held that: The first condition of any litigation in a Court of Justice is that there should be a competent plaintiff, i.e., a person who has a direct material interest in the determination of the question sought to be decided.

In a unitary form of government, as there is only one community and one public which the Attorney-General represents, the question which has now been raised cannot arise.

[19]The decision as to the competence of the Attorney-General of a State to sue the Commonwealth to protect the public from the operation of an invalid federal law was the basis for the development of the modern constitutional doctrine of standing.

[20] The decision continues to be cited as authority for the long settled practice of the High Court to decline to answer unnecessary constitutional questions.

[22] For over three-quarters of a century the Union Label case remained the only decision of the High Court which directly addressed the validity of a law said to have been made under section 51(xviii).

However, the narrow approach adopted in that case to the concept of a trade mark was not reflected in decisions of the High Court in the latter part of the 20th century.