rejecting a level of precision about the scope of the differences, but holding that arbitration, whether for settlement or prevention of a dispute, could only occur "where some difference can be perceived, and expressed in terms, however/general, between the parties who are to be affected by the decision." While all five judges are properly seen as among the framers of the Constitution, it was Higgins J who had taken a leading role in the Constitutional Conventions for the federal government the power to make laws relating to the conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes. As with the judgement of Isaacs J in Whybrow (No 1), Higgins J argues from the premise that the fundamental basis of the Australian legal system was that power was conferred on the Federal Parliament, not by the people of Australia but by the British parliament. Higgins J rejected the premise that the parties to the dispute needed to have taken a definite stand or made definite claims, but that an order or award could not be made except as against identified or identifiable parties. Aftermath The propositions in Whybrow (No 1) did not survive long. The notion that making an award, as opposed to its enforcement, was the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth was challenged by Isaacs, Rich & Powers JJ in their judgments in Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd, and in R v Hibble; Ex parte BHP. The reserved powers doctrine on which the decision of the majority was based was unambiguously rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, after changes in the composition of the Court. The proposition that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law was reversed in the 1926 case of Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn, with the majority adopting the "cover the field" test for inconsistency first propounded by Isaacs J in Whybrow (No 1). The effect of Whybrow (No 2) was much more long lived. It was the foundation of the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" as being treated "prima facie as genuine and real" had been followed by the High Court ever since. Prohibition On the question of prohibition, Whybrow (No 2) was one of a series in which the High Court