But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

Following the Senate's further rejection of the bills used as justification for the double dissolution election, an historic joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament was convened in August 1974, at which all 6 of the rejected bills which had been cited for the double dissolution were passed.

[2] The states of Western Australia and New South Wales challenged the validity of all 3 electoral Acts on the basis that they had not be passed in accordance with section 57.

Four future High Court judges appeared as counsel in the case: Ronald Wilson, then the Solicitor-General for Western Australia, William Deane, for New South Wales, Michael McHugh, as junior counsel for the Commonwealth, and Daryl Dawson, then the Solicitor-General for Victoria.

All members of the Court, other than Barwick CJ, held that section 57 does not impose a requirement of undue delay between the second rejection of the proposed laws and the dissolution of Parliament by the Governor-General.

Barwick CJ found that whilst there was a temporal limitation requiring the second rejection and the double dissolution to be related in time so as to form part of a current disagreement between the Houses, the lapse of time in this case was not sufficient to disqualify the bills from forming the basis for a double dissolution.

To the framers of the Constitution in 1900 the existing condition of the territories was not such as to suggest the immediate likelihood of their securing representation in either House, but the possibility of such a development occurring in the future was undeniable.

Following a change in the High Court's membership, McTiernan J retired in 1976 and was replaced by Aickin J, the representation of the territories was re-challenged in Queensland v Commonwealth (1977).

[3] The High Court again upheld the legislation, this time by an increased majority, with Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ affirming their earlier judgements, and Gibbs and Stephen JJ applying stare decisis to find that the legislation was constitutionally valid even though they considered the decision in Western Australia v Commonwealth to be wrong.