High Court of Australia
52 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 157
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA,] THE STATE OF TASMANIA AND ANOTHER PtarnviFrs ; AND
THE STATE OF VICTORIA AND ANOTHER Derenpanrs.
| Catia Law—Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse among the States— wy ¢, op A, State Act authorizing proclamation prohibiting importation into Victoria of any j934 1935, vegetable likely to introduce disease—Proclamation prohibiting importation of we Tasmanian potatoes—Validity—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. MELBOURNE,
92, 112—Vegetation and Vine Diseases Act 1928 ( Vict.) (No. 3797), sec. 4. Oct. 12, 15, 16, 1934. High Court—Practice—Court equally divided—Authority of decision in subsequent March 6, 1935. cases,
Sec. 4 of the Vegetation and Vine Diseases Act 1928 (Vict.) empowers the Sgn Duly Governor in Council of the State by proclamation to prohibit the importation, ae Uc introduction or bringing into Victoria of any tree, plant or vegetable which is, McTiernan JJ. in the opinion of the Governor in Council, likely to introduce any disease or insect into Victoria, and at any time to alter or revoke such proclamation.
Sub-sec. 3 makes it an offence to bring into Victoria any vegetable contrary
to any prohibition contained in any proclamation. The Governor in Council,
by a proclamation which recited that in his opinion the introduction of potatoes
from Tasmania was likely to introduce disease into Victoria, prohibited the i. importation, introduction or bringing into Victoria of potatoes from Tasmania, 'The State of Tasmania and the Attorney-General thereof brought an action in the High Court against the State of Victoria and the Minister for Agriculture of that State for a declaration that the proclamation was invalid, The State of Tasmania did not itself trade in potatoes with Victoria.
Held :— (1) By Gavan Duffy C.J., Rich, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ., that (a) the action was properly brought by the Attorney-General of Tasmania ; (6) the proclamation was invalid: by Gavan Duffy C.J., Rich, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ., because it contravened sec. 92 of the Constitution, and, by Gavan Duffy C.J., Bvatt and McTiernan JJ., also because it was not authorized by sec. 4 of the Vegetation and Vine Diseases Act. VOL. LIT i
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate