Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 21 December 2010 33 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2010] HCAB 12 (21 December 2010)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated.

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the November-December 2010 sittings.

Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation

S82/2010: [2010] HCA 42.

Judgment delivered: 1 December 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Taxation — Charitable institution — Appellant had object of promoting greater efficiency and effectiveness of foreign aid — Whether appellant “charitable institution” for purposes of Commonwealth tax exemptions and concessions — Whether meaning of “charitable institution” in revenue laws governed by law of charitable trusts — Whether meaning of “charitable institution” interpreted as at time of enactment — Whether appellant's main, predominant or dominant objects charitable — Whether for relief of poverty — Whether for advancement of education — Whether otherwise for purpose within spirit and intendment of preamble to Statute of Elizabeth 1601 (43 Eliz I c 4).
Trusts — Charitable trusts — Political objects doctrine — Whether, and to what extent, doctrine recognised by common law of Australia.
Words and phrases — “charitable institution”, “political objects”, “political purposes”.

Appealed from FCA FC: [2009] FCAFC 128; (2009) 178 FCR 423; (2009) 266 ALR 526; (2009) 74 ATR 19.

Commissioner of State Taxation v Cyril Henschke Pty Ltd & Ors

A4/2010: [2010] HCA 43.

Judgment delivered: 1 December 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel JJ.

Catchwords:

Stamp duties — Conveyance — Partnership — Dissolution of partnership — Retirement Deed effected retirement of one partner and reconstitution of partnership and continuation of business by remaining partners — Nature of partner’s interest in partnership assets — Whether Retirement Deed a conveyance of interest in personal property — Whether satisfaction of retiring partner’s interest and creation of new partnership assured or vested interest in personal property.
Words and phrases — “conveyance on sale”, “dissolution of partnership”, “equitable interest of partner”.

Appealed from SA SC: [2009] SASC 148; (2009) 104 SASR 22; (2009) 263 LSJS 224.

Port of Portland Pty Ltd v State of Victoria

M62/2010: [2010] HCA 44.

Judgment delivered: 8 December 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Constitutional law — States — Reception of English law — Status in Victoria of constitutional principle recognised in s 12 of Bill of Rights 1688.
Contract — Construction — Enforceability of contractual obligation — Treasurer of State of Victoria directed Port of Portland Authority to sell its assets and business to appellant under contract (“Contract”) — Section 4A(1) of Port of Portland Authority…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] HCAB 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation was a case concerning the tax treatment of charitable institutions. The High Court of Australia considered whether Aid/Watch Incorporated was a charitable institution under the Commonwealth tax exemptions and concessions. The Court had to determine if the meaning of “charitable institution” in the revenue laws was governed by the law of charitable trusts, and if so, whether it should be interpreted as at the time of enactment. Additionally, the Court examined if Aid/Watch Incorporated's main, predominant, or dominant objects were charitable, and if they fell within the spirit and intendment of the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth 1601 (43 Eliz I c 4). The Court also considered whether the political objects doctrine, as recognised by the common law of Australia, applied in this case.

The High Court of Australia held that Aid/Watch Incorporated was not a charitable institution for the purposes of the Commonwealth tax exemptions and concessions. The Court concluded that the meaning of “charitable institution” in the revenue laws should be interpreted as at the time of enactment and not governed by the law of charitable trusts. Furthermore, the Court found that Aid/Watch Incorporated's main objects were not charitable, as they did not fall within the spirit and intendment of the Statute of Elizabeth 1601. The political objects doctrine was also found to apply in this case, as Aid/Watch Incorporated's objects were considered to be political in nature. Consequently, Aid/Watch Incorporated was not entitled to the tax exemptions and concessions provided for charitable institutions.

Orders