Philip Morris Limited & Ors v Commissioner of Business Franchises & Anor; Coastace Pty Limited & Anor v State of New South Wales & Ors; Harper v Minister for Sea Fisheries

The High Court of Australia heard three consolidated matters: *Philip Morris Limited & Ors v Commissioner of Business Franchises & Anor*, *Coastace Pty Limited & Anor v State of New South Wales & Ors*, and *Harper v Minister for Sea Fisheries*. The first two matters concerned challenges to business franchise licences, specifically relating to tobacco and general business licences, brought by Philip Morris Limited and Coastace Pty Limited respectively. The third matter, *Harper*, involved a challenge to legislation concerning sea fisheries. The parties involved included the plaintiffs, who were challenging the validity of certain state legislation or its application, and the defendants, who were government officials and states defending the legislation.

The central legal issues before the High Court revolved around the constitutional validity of state legislation imposing licence fees, particularly in light of potential conflicts with Commonwealth legislation and the implied prohibition on discrimination against instrumentalities of the Commonwealth. Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether the business franchise licence fees imposed by Victoria and New South Wales, as applied to the plaintiffs, were invalid. This involved considering whether these fees constituted a tax or duty on goods, and whether they discriminated against interstate trade or commerce, or against the Commonwealth or its instrumentalities, contrary to the provisions of the Australian Constitution. The Court also had to consider whether the legislation in *Harper* was valid.

The Court's reasoning, as indicated by the submissions of counsel, focused on whether the business franchise licence fees were in substance a tax on the sale of goods, which would render them invalid if they discriminated against interstate commerce or were imposed on Commonwealth instrumentalities. Counsel for the plaintiffs sought to reargue established precedents such as *Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria* and *Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania*, suggesting that the Court might be persuaded to depart from these earlier decisions. The defendants and intervening states, represented by their Solicitors-General, opposed any reargument of these precedents, indicating a reliance on the existing legal framework established by those cases. The Court's ultimate decision would depend on its interpretation of the nature of the licence fees and their impact on constitutional principles.

The transcript indicates that the Court was hearing arguments on the granting of leave to appeal and the substantive merits of the cases. The final orders or outcome of these consolidated matters are not detailed in the provided text, which appears to be a transcript of the opening of proceedings.