Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises [1989] HCA 38

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises [1989] HCA 38

ORDER Answer the questions in the stated case as follows:

A.

Were the fees referred to in the statement of claim in so far as they were paid by:—

(i) the first plaintiff,

(ii) the second plaintiff,

(iii) the third plaintiff,

invalid as being exacted contrary to the provisions of s. 90 of the Constitution?

Answer:

(i) No.

(ii) No.

(iii) No.

B.

Is the Act invalid in so far as it applies to a person in the position of:—

(i) the first plaintiff,

(ii) the second plaintiff,

(iii) the third plaintiff,

as being contrary to the provisions of s. 90 of the Constitution?

Answer:

(i) No.

(ii) No.

(iii) No.

C.

Are ss. 7 and 10 of the Act invalid in so far as they apply to a person in the position of:—

(i) the first plaintiff,

(ii) the second plaintiff,

(iii) the third plaintiff,

as being contrary to the provisions of s. 90 of the Constitution?

Answer:

(i) No.

(ii) No.

(iii) No.

The plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the stated case.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Aug. 24 Mason C.J. and Deane J.

This is a case stated pursuant to s. 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903 Cth. The case raises questions as to the validity of licence fees payable under the Business Franchise (Tobacco) Act 1974 Vict. ("the Act"). The plaintiffs contend that the licence fees are invalid because they are duties of excise within the meaning of s. 90 of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs, Philip Morris Ltd. ("P.M.L."), Statewide Tobacco Services Ltd. ("S.T.S.") and G.P.M. Cigarette Distributors (Australia) Ltd. ("G.P.M."), are wholly owned subsidiaries of Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd. The first defendant is the officer responsible for the administration of the Act.