Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd & Anor v Australian Capital Territory

Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd and Luhaze ACT Pty Ltd (the plaintiffs) brought proceedings against the Australian Capital Territory. The case concerned a constitutional question arising under section 90 of the Australian Constitution, specifically the meaning of the word "exclusive" in relation to the Commonwealth Parliament's power to impose duties of excise. The central issue was how this provision applied to the current context of self-governing territories, which were not contemplated at the time of Federation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the power to impose duties of excise, vested exclusively in the Commonwealth Parliament by section 90, extended to precluding the Australian Capital Territory from exercising such a power. This involved interpreting the scope of "exclusive" in section 90, particularly in light of the historical context of the provision and the evolution of territories within the Australian constitutional framework. The plaintiffs argued that the term "exclusive" should be interpreted to mean exclusive of all other polities, including self-governing territories, not merely exclusive of the States.

The Court considered the historical understanding of section 90, noting that prior decisions often referred to the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. However, the plaintiffs contended that these remarks were made in a different era, before the existence of self-governing territories, and therefore were not determinative of the present question. They relied on the decision in *Hematite Petroleum* as being particularly instructive regarding the purpose of section 90, suggesting that a broader interpretation of "exclusive" was warranted to encompass self-governing territories.