Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria

Last updated

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided5 August 1983
Citation(s) [1983] HCA 23, (1983) 151   CLR  599
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gibbs CJ, Mason, Murphy, Wilson, Brennan and Deane JJ
Case opinions
(4:2) The pipeline operation fee was an excise Mason, Murphy, Brennan & Deane JJ

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria, [1] is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

Contents

Background

The plaintiffs were joint venture partners, subsidiaries of BHP and Esso, who used 3 trunk pipelines for the transportation of gas liquids and crude oil, which formed an "integral step in the production of the products sold by the plaintiffs". Prior to 1981 the "pipeline operation fee" under the Pipelines Act 1967 (Vic), [2] was $35 per kilometre, totalling less than $10,000 for each of the three trunk pipelines. As a result of the Pipelines (Fees) Act 1981 (Vic), [3] for the financial year 1981–1982 the tax was increased 100-fold to $10 million for the trunk pipelines. The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the tax imposed was invalid for being an excise duty contrary to section 90.

Decision

Mason J restated the rejection of the narrow view of excise, but noted that the broad view was tempered by the insistence of the Court that there be a strict relationship between the tax and the goods (the criterion of liability approach), and the problem of defining that relationship. He referred to the formulation in Bolton v Madsen , [4] which "has not emerged unscathed from the more recent decisions on s 90"; for example, there was Barwick CJ's formulation of a variety of factors in Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria . [5] His Honour notes that section 90 would do very little to add to the powers of the Commonwealth's economic and financial powers, if the States were allowed to circumvent the prohibition in section 90 through the criterion of liability approach. Since section 90 also allows the Commonwealth parliament to granting bounties on goods, it would make little sense for the States to be given the power to burden such production. Thus, overall, Mason J found that the objective of the power, to secure control over taxation of commodities, suggests the broad approach to excise. As for the required relationship, his Honour prefers the substantial effects doctrine – there need not be a strict arithmetical relationship between the tax and the quantity or value of the goods sold, and it is sufficient that the tax affects the price of the goods sold. A deciding factor in this case is the factual matrix. It appears that the fee is "not merely a fee for the privilege of carrying on an activity"; it is an exaction of such magnitude on a step of the production process, and it is a convenient means of applying such a tax.

Gibbs CJ made the observation that the States now have a severely restricted ability to tax: the restrictions from section 90, and the imposition of uniform income taxes.

See also

Related Research Articles

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exclusion clause</span>

Exclusion clauses and limitation clauses are terms in a contract which seek to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.

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.

Misleading or deceptive conduct is a doctrine of Australian law.

The constitutional basis of taxation in Australia is predominantly found in sections 51(ii), 90, 53, 55, and 96, of the Constitution of Australia. Their interpretation by the High Court of Australia has been integral to the functioning and evolution of federalism in Australia.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

<i>Redfern v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd</i>

Redfern v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power in section 51(i) of the Constitution.

<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>Peterswald v Bartley</i>

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> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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>Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

<i>Bolton v Madsen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

<i>Andersons Pty Ltd v Victoria</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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> 1997 High Court of Australia case

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.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

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.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and excise duties. 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.

References

  1. ↑ Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria [1983] HCA 23 , (1983) 151 CLR 599(5 August 1983), High Court.
  2. ↑ Pipelines Act 1967 (Vic).
  3. ↑ Pipelines (Fees) Act 1981 (Vic).
  4. ↑ Bolton v Madsen [1963] HCA 16 , (1963) 110 CLR 264(6 June 1963), High Court.
  5. ↑ Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria [1964] HCA 77 , (1964) 111 CLR 353(17 December 1964), High Court.
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.