Vanderstock v Victoria [2023] HCA 30

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ,

GAGELER, GORDON, EDELMAN, STEWARD, GLEESON AND JAGOT JJ

CHRISTOPHER VANDERSTOCK & ANOR PLAINTIFFS

AND

THE STATE OF VICTORIA DEFENDANT

Vanderstock v Victoria

[2023] HCA 30

Date of Hearing: 14, 15 & 16 February 2023

Date of Judgment: 18 October 2023

M61/2021

ORDER

The questions stated for the opinion of the Full Court in the amended special case filed on 6 September 2022 be answered as follows:

Question 1: Is s 7(1) of the Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 (Vic) invalid on the basis that it imposes a duty of excise within the meaning of s 90 of the Constitution?

Answer: Yes.

Question 2: Who should pay the costs of the proceeding?

Answer: The defendant.

Representation

R Merkel KC and C L Lenehan SC with F I Gordon SC and T M Wood for the plaintiffs (instructed by Equity Generation Lawyers)

R J Orr KC, Solicitor-General for the State of Victoria, with S Zeleznikow and M R Salinger for the defendant (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor)

S P Donaghue KC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, and D F C Thomas SC with C G Winnett and M P A Maynard for the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, intervening (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

M G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales, with Z C Heger for the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening (instructed by Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

P J F Garrisson SC, Solicitor-General for the Australian Capital Territory, with H Younan SC for the Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening (instructed by Government Solicitor for the Australian Capital Territory)

J A Thomson SC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia, with J D Berson for the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening (instructed by State Solicitor's Office (WA))