Hughes v Tasmania [1955] HCA 30

93 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 113

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

HUGHES . a ij 2 : - a PLAINTIFF ;

AND

THE STATE OF TASMANIA AND ANOTHER Drrenpanrs.

Constitutional Law (Cth.)—Freedom of inter-State trade commerce and intercourse— H.C. oF A. State Statutes—Validity—Public vehicle licensing system—Licences limited to 1955. areas—Necessity for permit to travel outside area—Imposition of charges on San basis of tareweight of vehicle and mileage—Goods purchased in mainland States MeLwourne, by Hobart merchants—Shipment by sellers to Launceston, Burnie or Beauty March 2, 3; Point—Application of Acts to carrier transporting goods therefrom to buyers in June 9. Hobart—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92—Traffic Act 1925-1954 (No. 38 of 1925—No. 5 of 1954) (Tas.), 88. 14, 15, 17, 20 (2) 11, 20a (1) (4)— Transport Act 1938-1953 (No. 70 of 1938—No. 73 of 1953) (Tas.), s. 14.

Merchants, carrying on business in Hobart, Tasmania, bought fruit from sellers in mainland States. The course of trade was for sellers to ship the fruit f.0.b. the port of shipment to either Devonport, Burnie or Beauty Point, consigning it sometimes to the buyer by his name and sometimes to H. as

consignee. The contracts did not impose any duty on the vendors to deliver the fruit in Hobart. The buyers employed H. as their agent both in his capacity of shipping agent and carrier. In his former capacity he received the consignments and cleared them by payment of the shipping freight, wharfage and inspection charges. In his capacity of carrier he carried the fruit in his lorries to the buyers in Hobart. His lorries never carried any goods having a different origin. Under the provisions of the Transport Act 1938-1953 (Tas.) and the Traffic Act 1925-1954 (Tas.) and regulations made thereunder it was necessary for H. to obtain a permit from the Transport Commission in order to carry the goods to Hobart. The conditions of the permit required him to pay a charge calculated according to a formula based on the tareweight of the vehicle and the mileage. H. contended that he was engaged in inter-State commerce in carrying the fruit and consequently that the Acts did not apply to him while so engaged.