In the preceding case, it was held that the Commonwealth's extensive regulations regarding premises used for the slaughtering of livestock for export were valid under s 51(i) of the Constitution. It was argued in this case that it was a necessary consequence of the decision that all production, regardless of whether it was intended for home or foreign consumption, would be regulated.
Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb and Fullagar JJ wrote a joint judgment denying the certificate of appeal, and reaffirmed the limitations to the power expressed by Fullagar J in the preceding case. Kitto J concurred.