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 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| (3:0) The Court considered the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 (per Griffith CJ, Barton & 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:
- The goods must be locally produced within the State.
- The tax must be imposed at the point of production or manufacture.
- The tax must be imposed in proportion to the quantity or value of the goods in question.
- It must be an indirect tax that gets passed on to the consumer through a higher price of goods.[5]
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
- ^ Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21, (1904) 1 CLR 497.
- ^ "Beer Excise Act 1901". Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
- ^ "Liquor Act 1898" (PDF). NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office. Retrieved 4 August 2016..
- ^ Peterswald v Bartley [1904] NSWStRp 28; (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 290.
- ^ Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21, (1904) 1 CLR 497 at 509.
- ^ Ha v New South Wales [1997] HCA 34, (1997) 189 CLR 465
Further reading
- Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.