Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd & Anor v ACT

In the High Court of Australia, Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd and Luhaz E ACT Pty Ltd were the plaintiffs, and the Australian Capital Territory and the Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue were the defendants. The case concerned significant legal issues that had not yet been set down for hearing due to their complexity. The parties had agreed to dissect these issues into two parts for potentially separate consideration, a course of action that appeared desirable to the Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiffs could succeed on the first question without persuading the Court to overrule one of its prior decisions. Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' position on this first question would require the Court to depart from its ruling in *Nott Bros v Barkley* (1924) 36 CLR 20, where Mr Justice Isaacs, for himself and two other Justices, had addressed a matter of principle considered identical to that raised by the plaintiffs.

The Court was informed that the plaintiffs would likely need leave to reargue the correctness of the *Nott Bros* decision. The outcome of such an application for leave could potentially determine whether full argument on the first question would even take place. The Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth, speaking on behalf of the States, indicated that dissecting the first question would be regarded as appropriate, suggesting that while some jurisdictions might have an abstract interest, it was unlikely they would be significantly agitated by this initial point. The estimated time for argument on the first question was one day, a figure agreed upon by the parties.