Roughley v New South Wales

The case of *Roughley v New South Wales* involved farm produce agents operating in Sydney who sold produce forwarded to them from principals residing in other Australian States. The plaintiffs, representing both inter-State and general farm produce agents, challenged the application of the New South Wales Farm Produce Agents Act 1926 to their business dealings with out-of-State principals. The dispute centred on whether the Act unduly interfered with inter-State trade and commerce, contrary to section 92 of the Australian Constitution.

The High Court was required to determine whether the provisions of the Farm Produce Agents Act 1926, which mandated licensing, record-keeping, trust account management, and specific accounting and remuneration practices for farm produce agents, were constitutionally valid when applied to agents selling produce from other States on behalf of out-of-State principals. Specifically, the court had to consider if these provisions constituted an impermissible burden on inter-State trade and commerce, thereby contravening section 92 of the Constitution.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Knox C.J., Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, and Powers JJ., held that the Farm Produce Agents Act 1926 was not invalid by reason of section 92 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the Act regulated the business of agents within New South Wales, irrespective of the origin of the produce or the residence of the principals. The sales of the farm produce occurred within New South Wales, and therefore, the regulation of those sales and the agents conducting them fell within the legislative power of the State. The Court distinguished between the freedom of inter-State trade and the regulation of businesses operating within a State's borders, finding that the Act did not directly impede the movement of goods across State lines but rather regulated the conduct of agents within New South Wales. Starke J. dissented.