Riverina Transport Pty Ltd v Victoria

Riverina Transport Pty Ltd brought an action against the State of Victoria and the Transport Regulation Board, alleging that the Transport Regulation Act 1933 (Vict.), as amended, contravened section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The plaintiff operated inter-state goods transport services and had its applications for licences refused by the Board, with these decisions subsequently approved by the Governor in Council. The plaintiff contended that this refusal constituted unlawful discrimination against inter-state trade, as licences were allegedly confined to intra-state operations.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Transport Regulation Act 1933 (Vict.), and its administration by the Transport Regulation Board and the Governor in Council, infringed section 92 of the Constitution by discriminating against inter-state trade and commerce. The court was required to determine if the refusal of licences to the plaintiff, based on its inter-state operations, rendered the Act invalid or provided a basis for legal relief.

The Court held that the Act did not contravene section 92 of the Constitution. Latham C.J. reasoned that even if discrimination against inter-state trade were established, the plaintiff had no cause of action cognizable by the court, stating that neither federal nor state statutes dealing with trade and commerce are invalid solely on the ground of discrimination. Rich J. found no evidence of an intent to obstruct inter-state trade. Dixon J. concluded that, based on prior High Court decisions, the Act was valid and the facts did not provide a legal basis for relief. Evatt and McTiernan JJ. held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated discrimination against inter-state trade at the border.

Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought. The court affirmed the validity of the Act, distinguishing between discriminatory legislation and discriminatory administration, and finding that in this instance, no actionable infringement of section 92 had been proven.