Luna Park Limited v Commonwealth [1923] HCA 49

Foam Gang Boon, Mi vr.

y Y Pits v Torres

Entel Eitiony 25 Fant % Sra Regional

'onunor- 4 hors

wea weak 1999)'95 et Some tba?

ewe WeXGS WALI

596 HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

LUNA PARK LIMITED . 3 3 . Prarntier;

AND

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA . Durenp.

H.C. or A, Practice—High Courl—Declaratory order—Hypothetical state of facts—E 1923. of discretion—Entertainments tax—Rules of the High Court 1911, Part I., Or —~ Nal

es "The plaintiff company brought an action in the High Court against the Com: monwealth in which it alleged that it intended, in conducting its place of pu Knox C.J., entertainment, to charge sixpence for admission to the main enclosure mic an entertainment was provided, and a further sum of sixpence for admission The 39.

each of several other enclosures (within the main enclosure) where other tainments were provided; and that the Commonwealth claimed that plaintiff should pay or account for tax, pursuant to the Entertainments

payments amounting to or exceeding one shilling in the aggregate made by one person for his admission to the main enclosure and the other enclc

tiff claimed declarations that certain of the-regulations were invalid, and the plaintiff was not liable to pay tax on any payments for admission to. entertainment save that it was liable to pay tax on any payment for adm to a separate entertainment which amounted to or exceeded one shilling. parties concurred in stating a case for the opinion of the Full Court upon th questions whether the regulations referred to were invalid and whether plaintiff was liable to pay entertainments tax on payments for adm: any entertainment other than that on any single payment for ad an entertainment which amounted to or exceeded one shilling.

Held, by Knox 0.5., Isaacs, Higgins, Rich and Starke JJ., that the qu should not be answered on the ground that, the facts upon which the cl to declarations was based being purely hypothetical, the Court should : make a declaratory order; and, by Higgins J., on the ground also that action was not " properly brought" within the meaning of Order IV., r. 1, ¢ Part I of the Rules of the High Court.