James v Commonwealth [1935] HCA 38

dc: Cons Cthy — Rev edi a Sed 14 James etacca ALR 2 FULL . 570 HIGH COURT (1935, (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.} JAMES PLAINTIFF ; AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH . 5 ' . DEeEFEND. H.C. or A, Constitutional Law (Cth.)—Freedom of inter-State trade and. commerce —Commoneall 1935. legislation—Interference with freedom of inter-State trade—Whether Cc Ww wealth bound by sec. 92 of Constitution—Previous litigation—Same question MELBOURNE, between same parties—The Constitution (62 & 63 Vict. c. 12), sec. May 16. Fruits Act 1928-1935 (No. 11 of 1928—No. 5 of 1935). Sypyey, The plaintiff, who carried on the business of selling dried fruit inter-Stal June 11. brought an action against the Commonwealth for the purpose of having tl Rich, Starke Dried Fruits Act 1928-1935 declared invalid as being inconsistent with sec. ms Dixon, Evatt of the Constitution which, he claimed, bound the Commonwealth as well

the States. The defendant took out a summons to have the action ina as vexatious and oppressive on the ground that the question raised in the | action had previously been litigated between the same parties in James v. The Commonwealth, (1928) 41 C.L.R. 442, and decided against the plaintiff. 'The defendant also demurred to the statement of claim.

Held :—

(1) That the action should not be dismissed as being vexatious and oppressive, as in the prior case the Court, although it ruled that see. 92 did not bind the Commonwealth, decided the case in the plaintiff's favour on other grounds.

(2) That sec. 92 of the Constitution did not bind the Commonwealth: The rulings to that effect in previous decisions of the High Court should not be reconsidered, and the demurrer should therefore be allowed.

Summons and DEMURRER.

Frederick Alexander James brought an action in the High Court against the Commonwealth. The statement of claim was, in substance, as follows :—