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 proceedings before the High Court of Australia involved three separate 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 core dispute, as revealed in the transcript, concerned the constitutionality of certain legislation, specifically the *Coastal Waters (State Title) Act*, which had not been previously argued in related litigation. The parties, including the plaintiffs, defendants, and interveners, were grappling with the implications of new constitutional arguments being raised late in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the potential unconstitutionality of the *Coastal Waters (State Title) Act*. This arose because the arguments supporting its constitutionality had not been adequately developed or presented to the Court, particularly in light of its non-consideration in prior cases. The Court was also faced with the procedural challenge of ensuring that all parties had sufficient opportunity to prepare and present their arguments on these newly raised constitutional matters, including the proper notification of these issues under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

The Court, presided over by Mason CJ, expressed concern about the late introduction of significant constitutional arguments, highlighting the dangers of insufficient advance exchange of contentions between parties. The Chief Justice noted that this lack of preparation risked wasting the Court's time. Counsel for the defendants and interveners indicated a need for further instructions and time to prepare arguments in response to the newly raised issues, particularly concerning the *Coastal Waters (State Title) Act*.

Given the circumstances, the Court was faced with a request for an adjournment to allow for proper preparation and argument on the constitutional questions. The transcript indicates that the Court was considering how to manage the proceedings to ensure fairness and thoroughness in addressing the complex constitutional issues that had emerged.