Broken Hill Associated Smelters Pty Ltd v Collector of Imposts (Vic)

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the interpretation of section 98 of the *Stamps Act 1915* (Vic). The dispute arose between The Broken Hill Associated Smelters Proprietary Limited (the appellant) and the Collector of Imposts for Victoria (the respondent) regarding the assessment of stamp duty on an annual licence. The appellant had made declarations under open policies for marine insurance, including a significant amount for war risk insurance effected in England with His Majesty's Government under a specific war risks insurance scheme.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the premiums paid by the appellant for war risk insurance with His Majesty's Government were to be taken into account by the Collector of Imposts when assessing the duty payable on the appellant's annual licence. Section 98 of the *Stamps Act 1915* required companies, persons, or firms not licensed to carry on marine assurance in Victoria, who insured or acted as agents for insurance with entities outside Victoria, to take out an annual licence with a duty of £500, unless the calculated duty was less.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that section 98 of the *Stamps Act 1915* did not apply to His Majesty's Government acting in relation to the war risks insurance scheme. The Court held that the legislation, which did not expressly bind the Crown, did not intend to include His Majesty's Government as a "company person or firm of persons" for the purposes of this section. The Court viewed the war risks insurance scheme as a national undertaking by the Crown, not a commercial trading activity, and therefore outside the scope and object of the section, which was primarily aimed at regulating ordinary commercial insurance business. The Court did not express an opinion on whether the section applied to an owner of goods insuring their own property. The appeal was allowed, the question in the special case was answered in the negative, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the special case, with an order for the refund of any amount overpaid.