Duncan v Vizzard

The case of *Green Star Trading Company Proprietary Limited v Vizzard* concerned prosecutions under the *State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931* (NSW). The informant, Mr. Vizzard, laid charges against the Green Star Trading Company Pty Ltd and its driver, Alexander Duncan. The company, incorporated in Victoria, transported goods by motor lorry from Melbourne to various towns in New South Wales, including Griffith, which was over fifty miles from the border. These journeys were competitive with the state railways. The company held licences for its lorries under the Act, but these licences were endorsed with special conditions, including a "Non-competitive licence" clause and a requirement to pay a fee per ton per mile for journeys competitive with the railways. Duncan was charged with driving a lorry on a journey not authorised by its licence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the provisions of the *State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931* (NSW), including its regulations and the administration of the Act as evidenced by the licence conditions, infringed section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States. Specifically, the court had to determine if the licensing scheme and the conditions imposed on the licences, particularly those relating to competition with railways and the payment of fees for competitive journeys, constituted an impermissible burden on interstate trade.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Rich, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ., held that the *State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931* (NSW) and its administration did not infringe section 92 of the Constitution. Dixon J. further noted that the majority decisions in previous cases, *R. v. Vizzard Ex parte Hill*, *O. Gilpin Ltd. v. Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways (N.S.W.)*, and *Bessell v. Dayman*, fully addressed the validity of the licences in the form they were issued. The court also found that the licence held by the company did not permit its lorry to be used on a journey that was competitive with the railways for a distance exceeding fifty miles. Consequently, the company was found to have offended against section 17 (5) of the Act for failing to comply with the licence conditions, and Duncan was found to have offended against section 28 (1) (c) for driving the lorry on an unauthorised journey.