Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory
Case
•
[1992] HCA 51
•15 October 1992
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [1992] HCA 51
[1992] HCA 51
15 October 1992
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Capital Territory (the respondent) to refuse its application for a licence to operate a photocopying business. The applicant contended that the respondent's decision was invalid on the grounds that the legislation under which the licence was refused, the *Litter Act 1977* (ACT), was invalid. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the *Litter Act 1977* (ACT) was a valid exercise of the legislative power of the Australian Capital Territory. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Act was a law with respect to the "government of the Territory" or the "peace, order and good government of the Territory" as contemplated by section 22 of the *Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988* (Cth).
The High Court unanimously held that the *Litter Act 1977* (ACT) was a valid law. The Court reasoned that the Act, by regulating the disposal of litter, was a law for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. The Chief Justice and Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ all agreed that the power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of a territory is a broad one, and that measures to control litter fall within its scope. The Court found no constitutional impediment to the Act's validity.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the *Litter Act 1977* (ACT) was a valid exercise of the legislative power of the Australian Capital Territory. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Act was a law with respect to the "government of the Territory" or the "peace, order and good government of the Territory" as contemplated by section 22 of the *Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988* (Cth).
The High Court unanimously held that the *Litter Act 1977* (ACT) was a valid law. The Court reasoned that the Act, by regulating the disposal of litter, was a law for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. The Chief Justice and Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ all agreed that the power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of a territory is a broad one, and that measures to control litter fall within its scope. The Court found no constitutional impediment to the Act's validity.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd v The Registrar of Firearms [2014] SADC 150
Cases Citing This Decision
289
Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu
[2025] HCA 6
Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu
[2025] HCA 6
Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu
[2025] HCA 6
Cases Cited
36
Statutory Material Cited
0
Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vict)
[1938] HCA 38
Whitehouse v Queensland
[1961] HCA 55
Nott Bros and Co Ltd v Barkley
[1925] HCA 11
Cited Sections