Legal Research
Cases
Buchanan v The Commonwealth

Buchanan v The Commonwealth

Case [1913] HCA 29 9 May 1913

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

16 CLR 315

BUCHANAN AND ANOTHER

THE COMMONWEALTH AND ANOTHER

DEFENDANTS, Constitutional law-Powers of Commonwealth-Legislation as to territory acquired

by Commonwealth-Taxation in territory-Tuxing Act dealing with other matters or with more than one subject of taxation-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51, 55, 122-Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910 (No. 20 of 1910), sec. 7-Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910 (No. 27 of April 10, 11. 1910), sec. 5-Administration and Probate Act 1891 (S.A.) (No. 537), sec. 27 14; May 9. Succession Duties Act 1893 (S.A.) (No. 567), secs. 4, 6, Second Schedule. Practice - Parties - Action to recover money demanded by judicial officer of

Commonwealth colore officii and paid under protest-Joinder of judicial officer of Commonwealth.

The limitations imposed by sec. 55 of the Constitution upon the making of laws imposing taxation apply only to such laws as are made under the power conferred by sec. 51 (ii.), and do not apply to laws made under the power to make laws for the government of any territory acquired by the Common- wealth conferred by sec. 122, the two powers being independent of one

Held, therefore, that the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910 and the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910, so far as by sec. 7 of the former Act and sec. 5 of the latter Act they purport to give effect in the Northern Territory, as laws of the Commonwealth, to laws of South Australia which impose taxation, are valid.

The executors of the will of a deceased person who owned certain property in the Northern Territory applied to the Judge of the Northern Territory to have an exemplified copy of the probate which had been granted in New South Wales re-sealed with the seal of the Northern Territory.

Held, that they were not entitled to have the exemplified copy of the pro- bate so re-sealed except on payment, in respect of the property in the Northern

16 CLR 316

Territory, of the succession and probate duties imposed by the Succession Duties Act 1893 (S.A.) and the Administration and Probate Act 1891 (S.A.).

The Judge of the Northern Territory cannot properly be joined as a defen- dant in an action against the Commonwealth to recover money alleged to have been wrongfully demanded by him colore officii, and to have been paid to the Commonwealth under protest.

CASE STATED.

The case was substantially as follows :- " 1. This is an action brought by William Buchanan and Charles Henry Buchanan, the executors of the will and codicil of William Frederick Buchanan, deceased, against the Common- wealth of Australia and the Honourable David J. D. Bevan, who is the Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

"2. The plaintiff's in this action claim that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of £4,471 4s. 8d., being an amount alleged by the plaintiffs to have been wrongfully demanded from the plaintiffs colore officii by the defendant the Honourable David J. D. Bevan,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Buchanan v The Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Buchanan v The Commonwealth [1913] HCA 29
Case: [1913] HCA 29
Decision Date: 9 May 1913

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Buchanan v The Commonwealth* was heard by the High Court of Australia. The dispute arose between the executors of a deceased estate, William and Charles Buchanan, and the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Commonwealth and the Honourable David J. D. Bevan, the Judge of the Northern Territory. The executors sought to recover succession and probate duties paid under protest, which they contended were wrongfully demanded by the Commonwealth for property located in the Northern Territory.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Commonwealth had the power to impose these taxation duties on assets within the Northern Territory, and whether the legislation enacted by the Commonwealth to give effect to South Australian taxation laws in the Territory was valid. A secondary issue concerned the propriety of joining the Judge of the Northern Territory as a defendant in the action.

The Court held that the limitations on laws imposing taxation found in section 55 of the Constitution apply only to laws enacted under the power granted by section 51(ii) of the Constitution. These limitations do not extend to laws made under the power conferred by section 122, which grants the Commonwealth Parliament the authority to legislate for territories. Consequently, the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910 and the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910, which purported to give effect to South Australian taxation laws in the Northern Territory, were deemed valid. The Court also found that the Judge of the Northern Territory could not be properly joined as a defendant in an action against the Commonwealth for money demanded colore officii.

The Court ordered that the action be dismissed with costs, as it found that the duties were lawfully payable. The Commonwealth undertook to refund any amount overpaid. The defendant Bevan was dismissed from the action without costs.

Orders