Cole v Whitfield

Last updated

Cole v Whitfield
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided2 May 1988
Citation(s) [1988] HCA 18, (1988) 165  CLR  360
Case history
Prior action(s)Court of Petty Sessions (Tas) September 1986
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ
Case opinions
(7:0) Where a law creates a discriminatory and protectionist burden on interstate trade and commerce and is not pursuant or incidental to a non-protectionist purpose, it will be in breach of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution. (per Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey & Gaudron JJ)

Cole v Whitfield, [1] is a decision of the High Court of Australia. At issue was the interpretation of section 92 of the Australian Constitution, a provision which relevantly states:

Contents

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

The court decided that s.92 prohibits burdens upon interstate trade, commerce, and intercourse of a 'protectionist kind'. The previously applied Individual Right interpretation of the section was abandoned in a unanimous joint judgement. Prior to Cole v Whitfield, s.92 was the most litigated section in the Constitution, bringing over 140 cases before the courts. [2] This was partially the consequence of inconsistent and confusing jurisprudence under the previous interpretive approach, as was acknowledged by the joint judgement. [3] The case largely settled s.92 jurisprudence, with the section only being infrequently the subject of litigation since. [4]

Background

Facts

Whitfield was a crayfish trader charged with the unlawful possession of undersized crayfish. He resided in Tasmania, but the fish were purchased in South Australia and shipped to Tasmania. Under South Australian state's law, the fish that he purchased were of a lawful size, but under Tasmanian laws, they were undersize. The Fisheries Act 1959, [5] empowered the Governor of Tasmania to make regulations relating to a number of subjects, one of which was the classification of undersized fish. The Sea Fisheries Regulations 1962 outlawed catching male crayfish less than 11 cm (110 mm) and female crayfish less than 10.5 cm (105 mm) in length. [6]

Whitfield and his company imported some crayfishes from South Australia for reselling, which were undersized under Tasmanian regulations. Cole, a Fisheries Inspector, charged Whitfield with a breach of the regulations. Whitfield pleaded not guilty and argued that section 92 protected the freedom of his interstate trade. The magistrate dismissed the complaint. Cole appealed to the Supreme Court of Tasmania; however, the case was removed to the High Court for determination of the constitutional question. [1] : at paras 3–4 

Decision

The Court decided that s.92's effect on interstate trade and commerce, was only to make it immune from 'discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind'. [7]

The court examined the purpose of the Tasmanian laws, and found that as they were aimed at conservation; the laws were not protectionist. Therefore, the laws were not found to be in breach of s.92.

The court rejected s.92 jurisprudence made in earlier cases. The difficulty of s.92 jurisprudence, the court noted, flowed 'from its origin as a rallying call for federationists who wanted to be rid of discriminatory burdens and benefits in trade, and who would not suffer that call to be muffled by nice qualifications'. [8] By 'refraining from defining any limitation on the freedom guaranteed by s.92 ... they ... passed to the courts the task of defining what aspects of inter-state trade were excluded from legislative or executive control or regulation'. This, the court noted, had resulted in a variety of legal propositions having arisen historically. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary Gaudron</span> 20th and 21st-century Australian judge

Mary Genevieve Gaudron, is an Australian lawyer and judge, who was the first female Justice of the High Court of Australia. She was the Solicitor-General of New South Wales from 1981 until 1987 before her appointment to the High Court. After her retirement in 2002, she joined the International Labour Organization, serving as the President of its Administrative Tribunal from 2011 until 2014.

The system of Tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<i>Commonwealth v Tasmania</i> 1983 Australian constitutional law case

Commonwealth v Tasmania was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia is the part of the Constitution of Australia that deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws, and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent state laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdiction is considered persuasive in the others.

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.

Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia the right to legislate with respect to "external affairs".

<i>OSullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power, under s 51(i) of the Australian Constitution, and inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, under section 109 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>Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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>Barley Marketing Board (NSW) v Norman</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Barley Marketing Board (NSW) v Norman is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the question of whether State-run marketing boards are permissible under Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, which deals with the freedom of interstate trade and commerce.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Barger is a 1908 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.

<i>Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Bank of New South Wales v The Commonwealth, also known as the Bank Nationalisation Case, is a decision of the High Court of Australia that dealt with the constitutional requirements for property to be acquired on "just terms", and for interstate trade and commerce to be free. The High Court applied an 'individual rights' theory to the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that lasted until 1988, when it was overturned in favour a 'free trade' interpretation in Cole v Whitfield.

<i>Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia determined that a series of amendments made by the Western Australian government to prohibit the operation of betting exchanges, amounted to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind.

<i>Tasmania v Commonwealth</i>

Tasmania v Commonwealth, is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia in 1904. The case concerned a claim by Tasmanian for customs tariffs collected in Victoria during the period between Federation and the commencement of the Commonwealth Customs Tariff. Significantly, the High Court established that the Australian Constitution should interpreted consistently with the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.

<i>Richardson v Forestry Commission of Tasmania</i>

Richardson v Forestry Commission of Tasmania is an Australian legal decision in which the High Court of Australia upheld a Commonwealth law providing interim protection of an area of Tasmanian wilderness while an inquiry assessed what parts of the wilderness should be listed for World Heritage protection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia</span>

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

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

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.

Betfair Australia is the Australian operation of the web betting exchange, Betfair. Established in 2005, Betfair Australia operates Australia's only betting exchange under a Tasmanian Gaming Licence. Since August 2014 Betfair Australia has been fully owned by Crown Resorts.

References

  1. 1 2 Cole v Whitfield [1988] HCA 18 , (1988) 165 CLR 360(2 May 1988), High Court (Australia).
  2. ↑ Cullen, Richard, Section 92: Quo Vadis (September 12, 2012). University of Western Australia Law Review, Vol. 19, pp. 20, 1989, Available at SSRN: SSRN   2145209
  3. ↑ "Cole v Whitfield [1988] HCA 18 - BarNet Jade". jade.io. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  4. ↑ Coper, Michael, Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia and the New Jurisprudence of Section 92 (October 16, 2013). Invited paper originally given at the 2009 UNSW Constitutional Law Conference., ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 13-17, Available at SSRN: SSRN   2340894
  5. ↑ Fisheries Act 1959 (Tas) s 9.
  6. ↑ Sea Fisheries Regulations 1962 Tas reg 31(1)(d).
  7. ↑ Cole v Whitfield [1988] HCA 18 at para. 24, (1988) 165 CLR 360(2 May 1988), High Court (Australia)
  8. ↑ Cole v Whitfield [1988] HCA 18 at para. 19, (1988) 165 CLR 360(2 May 1988), High Court (Australia)
  9. ↑ Cole v Whitfield [1988] HCA 18 at para. 20, (1988) 165 CLR 360(2 May 1988), High Court (Australia)
  10. ↑ Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia [1990] HCA 1 , (1990) 169 CLR 436(7 February 1990), High Court (Australia).
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.