Peterswald v Bartley

Peterswald v Bartley
Court High Court of Australia
Full case name Peterswald v Bartley
Decided 31 August 1904
Citation(s) (1904) 1 CLR 497; [1904] HCA 21
Case history
Prior action(s) Peterswald v Bartley [1904] NSWStRp 28;
(1904) 4 SR (NSW) 290
Subsequent action(s) none
Case opinions
(3:0) The Court considered the meaning of excise in relation to section 90
(per Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ

Peterswald v Bartley [1] is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

Background

Bartley was a brewer of beer at Cootamundra in the state of New South Wales. He had a licence under the Commonwealth Beer Excise Act 1901[2] however he didn't have a licence under the NSW Liquor Act 1898.[3] Sergeant Peterswald was a police officer and District Licensing Inspector and he charged Bartley with carrying on the trade or business of a brewer without holding a licence under the NSW Act and the issue concerned the payment of a licence fee. The Police Magistrate upheld Bartley's contention that the licence fee was an excise duty and that the effect of section 90 of the Australian Constitution was that the state Act ceased to have effect once the Commonwealth imposed uniform customs duties. Peterswald appealed to the Supreme Court of NSW, where the Sergeant was represented by the then Attorney-General of NSW, Bernhard Wise KC. The Supreme Court, by a majority, Darley CJ and Owen J, dismissed the appeal. Pring J dissented.[4]

Decision

Griffith CJ delivered the judgement of the court, holding that an excise is a customs duty imposed on goods either in relation to quantity or value when produced or manufactured and not in the sense of a direct or personal tax. His Honour outlined four elements of an excise:

His Honour's requirement that the tax be imposed at the point of production or manufacture forms what is known as the narrow approach to section 90. The narrow approach was rejected by the High Court in Ha v New South Wales.[6]

See also

References

  1. Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21, (1904) 1 CLR 497.
  2. "Beer Excise Act 1901". Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
  3. "Liquor Act 1898" (PDF). NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office. Retrieved 4 August 2016..
  4. Peterswald v Bartley [1904] NSWStRp 28; (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 290.
  5. Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21, (1904) 1 CLR 497 at 509.
  6. Ha v New South Wales [1997] HCA 34, (1997) 189 CLR 465

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 8/4/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.