Bolton v Madsen

Last updated

Bolton v Madsen
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided 6 June 1963
Citation(s) [1963] HCA 16, (1963) 110  CLR  264
Case history
Appealed from Magistrates Court (Qld)
Case opinions
(6:0) The broad approach and the criterion of liability approach to excise were approved
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Dixon CJ, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ

Bolton v Madsen, [1] is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise duty.

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and of excise. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.

Constitution of Australia the supreme law of Australia

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the government of the Commonwealth of Australia operates, including its relationship to the States of Australia. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is referred to as the "Constitution" in the remainder of this article. The Constitution was approved in a series of referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

This case followed Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria . [2] It upheld the broad approach to excise, that is, excise duties are taxes on goods at some stage in their production or distribution before they reach consumers. Furthermore, the case supported the criterion of liability approach, that is, a tax must be applied directly to the goods. The judges gave some guidance on the required relationship; the relationship is satisfied "if the tax is calculated by reference to the quantity or value of goods produced or dealt with in the relevant period", as summarised by Mason J in Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria . [3] This approach, of ensuring that the burden is down the line ensures that it is conformant with the original description of excise in Peterswald v Bartley . [4] The mere fact that there was an increase in the price of goods is insufficient.

<i>Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying customs or excise duties. Although some of the judges used the now-discredited criterion of liability approach, this case remains authority for cases that are factually similar to it.

Sir Anthony Frank Mason, is an Australian judge who served as the ninth Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1987 to 1995. He was first appointed to the High Court in 1972, having previously served on the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

<i>Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.


See also

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Related Research Articles

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

<i>Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd</i>

Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd, also known as the Concrete Pipes Case, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power.

<i>Cole v Whitfield</i>

Cole v Whitfield, was a landmark High Court of Australia decision where the Court overruled two long settled approaches to the interpretation of the Constitution, that no regard could be had to the debates of Constitutional Conventions in the interpretation of the Constitution, and that the words "absolutely free" in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, protected a personal individual right of freedom in interstate trade. It was instead replaced with the economic notion of "free trade" in that interstate trade was not to be subject to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind. Despite being a unanimous judgment, the decision remains controversial.

<i>Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd</i>

Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the application of the freedom of interstate trade, as specified in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia. This case followed the unanimous decision of Cole v Whitfield, regarding the interpretation of section 92 as about free trade as opposed to individual rights.

<i>Peterswald v Bartley</i> legal case heard in the High Court of Australia in 1904

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

<i>Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic)</i>

Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that considered section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise (taxes). Although the meaning of excise was considered in Peterswald v Bartley, this case significantly broadened its reach.

<i>Parton v Milk Board (Vic)</i>

Parton v Milk Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Andersons Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia. In this case, following on from such cases as Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria, Barwick CJ accepted the broad approach to the definition of an excise, but rejected the formalistic criterion of liability approach for determining if the excise falls at the relevant step. He adopted the substance over form approach, or the substantial effects doctrine, in that there are many factors to be considered, for example, the indirectness of the tax, its effect on the cost of goods and its proximity to the production or distribution of the goods.

<i>Dickensons Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania</i>

Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania, also known as the Tobacco Tax case is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Ha v New South Wales</i>

Ha v New South Wales is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

<i>R v Barger</i>

R v Barger is a High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

References

  1. ↑ Bolton v Madsen [1963] HCA 16 , (1963) 110 CLR 264(6 June 1963), High Court.
  2. ↑ Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria [1960] HCA 10 , (1960) 104 CLR 529(26 February 1960), High Court.
  3. ↑ Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria [1983] HCA 23 , (1983) 151 CLR 599(5 August 1983), High Court.
  4. ↑ Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21 , (1904) 1 CLR 497. (31 August 1904), High Court.

George Graham Winterton was an Australian academic specialising in Australian constitutional law. Winterton taught for 28 years at the University of New South Wales before taking up an appointment of Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney in 2004.

 

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.