Cuming Campbell Investments Pty Ltd v Collector of Imposts (Vic)

Cuming Campbell Investments Pty Ltd sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Victoria, directing the Collector of Imposts to assess stamp duty on a land transfer at a value of £50,000. The Collector had refused to assess the transfer unless an earlier, unstamped agreement for the sale of the property was also submitted for assessment, and indicated that he believed the land's value was significantly higher than £50,000. The Supreme Court dismissed the order nisi for mandamus, with the Collector providing an undertaking to respond to the company's request for an opinion under section 32 of the Stamps Act 1928 within twenty-one days. The company appealed this decision to the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court had erred in refusing to grant the writ of mandamus, and, more broadly, whether a court could compel a public official, such as the Collector of Imposts, to exercise a statutory discretion in a specific manner. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Collector's refusal to assess the transfer until the antecedent agreement was assessed constituted a failure to perform his statutory duty under section 32 of the Stamps Act, and if so, whether mandamus was the appropriate remedy to compel him to assess the transfer at the value stated by the taxpayer.

The High Court, in a majority decision (Rich J. dissenting), held that the writ of mandamus as sought was rightly refused. The Court reasoned that a writ of mandamus cannot be used to control the exercise of a statutory discretion by directing the public official to reach a particular conclusion. Instead, mandamus can only compel the performance of a duty, such as considering an instrument and expressing an opinion as to its dutiability and the amount of duty chargeable. The Court noted that the Stamps Act provided a specific avenue for appeal to the Supreme Court if a party was dissatisfied with the Collector's assessment, which was the proper mechanism for challenging the Collector's decision, rather than using mandamus to dictate the outcome of that decision.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court varied the recital in the Supreme Court's order concerning the Collector's undertaking to more precisely reflect the terms of section 32 of the Stamps Act. The majority also held that the appellant should pay the costs of the appeal.