James v The Commonwealth [1936] UKPCHCA 4

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN THE

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1936.

[PRIVY COUNCIL.]

JAMES . i i ' b 5 i . APPELLANT; PLatntIFF, AND THE COMMONWEALTH . Eee ys . REsPonpDEnt. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT.

Privy Constitutional Law (Oth.)}—Freedom of inter-State trade and commerce—Common- Councit*

wealth legislation—Interference with freedom of inter-State trade—Commonwealth 1936, bound by sec. 92 of the Constitution—Dried Fruits Act 1928-1935 (No. 11 of | "~

1928—No. 5 of 1935)—The Constitution (62 & 63 Vict. c. 12), sec. 92. ies Dub 'The Commonwealth is bound by sec. 92 of the Constitution. ou oe uly 7.

The Dried Fruits Act 1928-1935 and the regulations made thereunder are ultra vires the Commonwealth Parliament as contravening sec. 92 of the Constitution.

Decision of the High Court : James v. The Commonwealth, (1935) 52 C.L.R. 570 (following W. & A. McArthur Ltd. v. Queensland, (1920) 28 C.L.R. 530) reversed.

* Present—The Lord Chancellor (Viscount Hailsham), Lord Russell of Killowen, The Master of the Rolls (Lord Wright), Sir George Lowndes, Sir Sidney Rowlatt.

Privy Covnen. 1936. ee)

JAMES v. THE Common- WEALTH.

HIGH COURT (1936.

AppraL from the High Court to the Privy Council.

This was an appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court of Australia in James v. The Commonwealth (1). Frederick Alexander James a fruit merchant carrying on business in South Australia commenced an action in the High Court against the Commonwealth of Australia. By his statement of claim the plain- tiff alleged that, purporting to act in pursuance of the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Act 1928-1935 and the regulations and determinations made thereunder, the defendant Commonwealth (1) had caused to be seized the plaintiff's consignments of dried fruit in the course of delivery to purchasers in New South Wales and (2) had notified shipping companies and other carriers that, if they carried dried fruits tendered for carriage by any person not holding a licence under the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Act 1928-1935, they would incur penalties. The plaintiff further alleged that, by determinations made under the Act, the holder of an owner's licence was required to export from Australia a fixed percentage of each class of dried fruits produced by him. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant Commonwealth was wrongfully insisting upon his taking out a licence as a condition of his being allowed to sell his dried fruits in other States of the Commonwealth, and was wrongfully preventing him from fulfilling his inter-State contracts. The statement of claim claimed a declaration that the Dried Fruits Act and the regulations made thereunder were ultra vires as contravening sec. 92 of the Constitution, together with an injunction, and damages.