Flint v Webb [1907] HCA 77

ie 4 *

rey ae | piesa ae

1178 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

FLINT DEFENDANT,

AND

WEBB COMPLAINANT,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF VICTOR

H.C. or A, Appeal to Privy Council—Decision as to limits inter se of constitutional po 1907. Commonwealth and State—Certificate of High Court—'* Special reasons" ~ Constitution (63 & 64 Viet. c. 12), sec. 74. . 3

Mexpournr, May 21, 22, The fact that a decision of the Privy Council, on a question of law as t 23, 245 the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and

Baer, States, is contrary to a previous decision of the High Court as to Griffith 0.J., certificate under sec. 74 of the Constitution has been asked and refused, | Oto: not to be of itself a sufficient special reason for granting a certificate

pores and

another decision of the High Court following its previous decision.

The inconvenience caused by the existence of those contrary decisions not to be a sufficient reason.

Per Griffith C.J., O'Connor J. and Isaacs J.—That inconvenience removed by the Commonwealth Parliament exercising its powers 77 (u1.) of the Constitution,

Per Griffith C.J.—That inconvenience can also be removed by the Comm wealth Parliament making its grants to its servants nibject ota States to tax them,

Per Higgins J.—Quere, whether, if a State income tax on federal servants is invalid under the Constitution, the Commonwealth liament can validate such a tax.

AppeaL from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

40.1.2} OF AUSTRALIA. .

On the complaint of Thomas Prout Webb, Commissioner of H- ©: oF A.

Taxes of Victoria, an order was made against Arthur Loftus Flint, for the payment of £2 ds. 3d., for income tax for the year 1904, with 14s. interest thereon, and £2 2s. costs. It appeared that Flint was an officer in the Department of the Postmaster- General of Victoria employed as a telegraph operator, and he therefore put in a special defence that he was a public servant in the employ of the Commonwealth of Australia, and was not within the jurisdiction of the State of Victoria for taxation purposes so far as the tax sued for was concerned.