Collier Garland Ltd v Hotchkiss

Collier Garland Ltd. (the appellant) was convicted in a New South Wales court of petty sessions for permitting a motor vehicle not registered under the *Motor Traffic Act 1909-1955* (NSW) to be driven on a public street. The appellant, a company engaged in inter-State carriage of goods, argued that the provisions of the Act and its regulations, as applied to its vehicle, contravened section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of inter-State trade, commerce, and intercourse. The core of the dispute lay in whether the New South Wales legislation imposed an undue burden on inter-State transport by requiring registration of vehicles already registered in another State, or by granting discretionary powers that could impede such trade.

The High Court was required to determine the validity of sections 5B(1) and 6(1)(c)(v) of the *Motor Traffic Act* and relevant regulations in light of section 92 of the Constitution. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Act and regulations, by requiring registration of vehicles engaged in inter-State trade even if already registered elsewhere, and by conferring broad discretionary powers on the Commissioner for Motor Transport regarding registration, imposed an impermissible restraint on inter-State commerce. The Court also had to assess whether the proviso to section 6(1), which allowed for registration to be sought at the nearest district registry, provided a sufficient safeguard against such restraints.

The Court held that the validity of a law must be assessed according to its terms, not by administrative practice, and that the *Motor Traffic Act* and its regulations, as written, did not exempt vehicles registered in other States from the requirement of registration in New South Wales. It found that Regulation 13(2), which allowed the Commissioner to refuse registration if an applicant was not a "fit and proper person," conferred an indefinite discretionary judgment that was inconsistent with section 92 of the Constitution when applied to vehicles engaged in inter-State trade. Furthermore, the proviso to section 6(1), while seemingly offering an exemption, was found to subject vehicles engaged in inter-State trade to restraints and delays that would render efficient inter-State transport impracticable, thus also contravening section 92.

Consequently, the High Court made the order absolute, quashing the conviction of Collier Garland Ltd. The Court concluded that the relevant provisions of the *Motor Traffic Act* and its regulations, by their terms, created prohibitions that applied to motor vehicles in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, and these prohibitions were not adequately qualified by the regulations to be consistent with the freedom guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.