| Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia | |
 |
|
| High Court of Australia | |
| Full case name | Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia |
|---|---|
| Date decided | 7 February 1990 |
| Citations | (1990) 169 CLR 436 |
| Judges sitting | Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions: | none |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (7:0) If a law is protectionist in nature, but has a non-protectionist purpose, the means chosen to attain the non-protectionist purpose must be necessary, or appropriate and adapted, and in this case, the higher deposits on non-refillable beer bottles was not found to be a proportionate means. The High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal in Australia the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. Events 457 - Leo I becomes emperor of the Byzantine Empire. 1074 - Battle of Montesarchio in which the Prince Year 1990 ( MCMXC) was a Common year starting on Monday (link displays the 1990 Gregorian calendar) Sir Anthony Frank Mason AC, KBE, QC (born 21 April 1925 Australian Judge and Royal Australian Air Force officer Sir Francis Gerard Brennan AC, KBE, QC (born 22 May, 1928) is an Australian lawyer judge and 10th Chief Justice Sir William Patrick Deane, AC, KBE, QC (born 4 January 1931) Australian judge and 22nd Governor-General of Australia. Sir Daryl Michael Dawson AC KBE CB (born 1933 Australian Judge and naval officer was a Justice of the High Court of Australia John Leslie Toohey AC, QC (born 1930 Australian Judge, was a Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1987 to 1998 Mary Genevieve Gaudron (born 5 January 1943) Australian lawyer and judge was the first female Justice of the High Court of Australia. Michael Hudson McHugh, AC QC, (born 1 November 1935) is a former justice of the High Court of Australia; the highest court in the (per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Gaudron & McHugh JJ) | |
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1990) 169 CLR 436 is a High Court of Australia case that deals with whether a particular Act of South Australia contravenes section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which is about the freedom of interstate trade. The Commonwealth Law Reports ( CLR) are the authorised reports of decisions of the High Court of Australia. The High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal in Australia the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. South Australia is a state of Australia in the southern central part of the country The Constitution of Australia is the law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates
Contents |
Background
The Beverage Container Act 1975 (SA) required a mandatory deposit of 5 cents per bottle, which would be refunded when they were returned; refillable bottles were exempt from this deposit. A later amendment, the Beverage Container Act Amendment Act 1986 (SA) subjected non-refillable bottles to a refund of 15 cents and refillable bottles to a refund of 4 cents. In addition, the refund for non-refillable bottles was to be implemented by retailers, instead of a collection depot.
The Bond brewing companies brewed beer outside of South Australia, and they used non-refillable bottles as opposed to their South Australian counterparts. Beer is the world's oldest and most widely consumed Alcoholic beverage and the third most popular drink overall after water and tea Although a 5 cent deposit would not have disadvantaged the Bond companies, the later Act's higher deposit and refund mechanism acted together to make their beer uncompetitive. Around the time of the amending Act, the Bond companies' advertising campaign had increased their market share at the expense of the principle South Australian brewer. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the laws were invalid as being contrary to section 92.
Decision
Although all parties conceded that the increase in the deposit disadvantages the Bond companies, the question to be resolved was whether it was permissible for the State legislation to disadvantage interstate beer over local beer, if it on its surface was directed at solving an environmental problem. The Court's unanimous decision was that, in this case, the legislation was contrary to section 92 of the Constitution.
Prima facie, a law that imposes a prohibition or requirement on both interstate and intrastate trade, or upon a particular interstate trader, is not protectionist. However, if the law is designed to secure a legitimate object and a non-discriminatory method exists, then it may suggest that the object is instead to discriminate. The burden upon interstate trade and commerce is legitimate provided that it is merely incidental to the attainment of the legitimate object, or if such regulation may be necessary or appropriate and adapted for the protection or enhancement of the welfare of the community.
The joint judgment by Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ outlines the reasons why the 1986 legislation is not appropriate and adapted to the protection of the environment. The magnitude of the difference in refund between refillable and non-refillable bottles greatly exceeded the amount required to disadvantage the sale of beer in non-refillable bottles. The judges also criticised the part of the scheme that allowed for refillable bottles but not non-refillable bottles to be returned to a collection depot as not capable of justification as a means of achieving the environmental aims. The judges clarified that discrimination against interstate trade may still apply even though the "discrimination is directed at, or sustained by, all, some or only one of the relevant interstate traders". Furthermore, the judges did not think that the litter problem or the need to conserve energy resources provided a justification for the implementation of this scheme; they made reference to the quantitative impact of such a law, and the fact that alternative measures were open to the legislature to achieve these aims.
The joint judgment of Gaudron and McHugh JJ accepted the question of whether a law is appropriate and adapted, but also provided some guidance as to discrimination: "the essence of the legal notion of discrimination lies in the unequal treatment of equals, and, conversely, in the equal treatment of unequals".
See also
- Section 92 of the Australian Constitution
- Australian constitutional law
References
- Winterton, G. et al. Australian constitutional law is the area of the Law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Professor George Winterton LLB (First Class Hons LLM (WA JSD (Columbia Barrister (NSW Barrister and Solicitor (Vic and WA is Professor of Constitutional Law at the University Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.
External links
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic