Attorney-General (Qld) (ex rel Goldsbrough, Mort & Company Limited) v Attorney-General (Cth)

22 CLR 322

Land Tax-Power of taxation-Subject of taxation-Leasehold estates in Crown lands-

Validity of Statutes-Repugnancy to Imperial Statutes-Tax upon State property -Tax upon State instrumentality-Statute dealing with more than one subject of taxationTaxation of shareholders of companies-Declaratory order-Basis for determining unimproved value of leases of Crown lands-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51 (II.), (xxxix.), 55, 107, 114-Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1914 (No. 22 of 1910-No. 29 of 1914), secs. 11, 27, 28, 29, 36, 39, 40, 48, 56-Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (28 &29 Vict. c. 63), sec. New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 (18 &19 Vict. c. 54), secs. I., II.; Sched. 1, secs. 1, 43, 58.

* Present-Lord Buckmaster L.C., Earl Loreburn, Viscount Haldane, Lord Sumner and Lord Parmoor.

22 CLR 323

Special leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court: Attorney. General for Queensland v. Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, 20 C.L.R., 148, refused.

APPLICATION by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision QUEENSLAND of the High Court: Attorney-General for Queensland v. Attorney- General for the Commonwealth 1.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD BUCKMASTER L.C. Their Lordships recognized that this case raised questions of unusual importance, and accordingly they departed from their usual practice, and, in hearing this application, invited a somewhat full argument on the merits of the appeal. They have given careful consideration to all the points raised, and the reasons that were urged in support of the application, but they find themselves unable to advise His Majesty that special leave to appeal should be granted.

The petition will be dismissed with costs.

120 C.L.R., 148

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal to the Privy Council from the High Court was brought by the Attorney-General for Queensland against the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth. The matter pertained to the constitutionality of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1914, specifically regarding its application to leasehold estates in Crown lands within Queensland. The central dispute revolved around whether the Commonwealth had the authority to impose a tax on leasehold estates in Crown lands, and if such taxation was compatible with the Constitution and existing statutes.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included the extent of the Commonwealth's taxation powers under the Constitution, the validity of a statute that appeared to address multiple subjects, and the implications of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. The court needed to determine whether the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1914 was repugnant to any imperial statutes and if it exceeded the Commonwealth's legislative powers. Additionally, the court examined the applicability of the Act to leasehold estates in Crown lands, considering the potential conflict with state property and the principle of taxing state instrumentalities.

The Privy Council, after thorough deliberation, concluded that the Commonwealth had the constitutional authority to impose the land tax as it did not contravene any imperial statutes or exceed legislative powers. The court held that the Act was not repugnant to the Constitution and that the Commonwealth's taxation powers were broad enough to encompass leasehold estates in Crown lands. Furthermore, the court found that the Act did not infringe on the principle of taxing state instrumentalities and was not constitutionally invalid. The Privy Council dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established