Graham v Paterson

[1950] HCA 9

Cons

R V Fukusnto ^2003] 1 QdR

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN THE

HIGH COUHT OF AUSTRALIA

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

GRAHAM AND ANOTHERAppellants

;

Defendants,

.VND

PATERSON ..

Respondent.

Complainant,

Constitutional Law—Freedom of inter-State tradfi and commerce—Fixation by

H. C. OF A.

a State of maximum price—Purchased in one State consumed in another State

1950.

—Matters—“ Referred ” by State to Commonwealth—Exercise of powers by

Commonwealth—Concurrent or exclusive—State and Commonwealth legislation

Sydney,

—Inconsistency—Special provision in State legislation—Reference of matters—

April 21, 24;

State legislation—Terminaiion or repeal in whole or in part—Special provision May

15.

—Subsequent State legislation—Conflict with “ reference ” statute—The Con­

Latham C..T.. McTiernaii,

stitution (63 & 64 Viet. c. 12), ss. .51 (xxxvii.), 52, 92, 106, 107, 109—The Com­

Williams,

monwealth Powers Act of 1943 (Q.) (7 Geo. VI. No. 19), ss. 3, 4—The Profiteering

Webb and

piillagar J.I,

Prevention Act of 1948 (Q.) (12 t/eo. VI. No. 34), ss. 2, 43.

■

Section 43 of The Profiteering Prevention Act of 1948 provides that a person shall not sell any declared goods at a greater price than the maximum price fixed in relation thereto by or under the Act for the sale of those goods. Sec­ tion 2 of the Act provides (inter alia) “ (1) This Act . . . shall bo read and construed so as not to exceed the legislative power of the State to the intent that where any enactment contained in this Act . . . would but for this section be construed as being in excess of that power, it shall never­ theless be a valid enactment ... to the extent to which it is not in excess of that yjower. (2) (a) That if any enactment of this Act is inconsistent with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act . . . that enact-

HIGH COURT

I[. C. OK A. incnt . . . slia.li iu;vcrfclicle.s.s operate to the full extent to which it can

1950.operate eoiwistently with the Commonwealth oi' Australia Constitution Act."

GuahasiHeld (1) that in relation to a sale of goods that had no inter-State element The. Projileering I’revenl.ion Act of 194S is valid. (2) The fact that goods

1’ATEHS(.I\.sohl across the countei' in one State, might bo taken across the border to

anothei' State did not necessarily constitute an intru'-Stato transaction to

which s. 92 of the (Constitution a])pliod.

Per Latham C.J., Well) and Fullagar J.J. 'Phe Court will not decide an allegation of infringement against .s. 92 of the Con.stitution unless it is necessary to do so foi’ the purpose of determining a particular case before the (lourt.

'file reference b'̂ a State Parliament of a matter to the Commonwealth Parliament under s. 51 (xx.xvii.) of the Constitution does not deprive the State Parliament of the power of makdng laws with i-espect to that matter.

Order

Nisi

to

Review.

Upon the complaint of Korman Robert Paterson, a clerk in the office of the Commissioner of Prices for…