Full case name Peterswald v Bartley Date decided August 31, 1904 | Subsequent action(s) none Ruling court High Court of Australia | |
 | ||
Citation(s) [1904] HCA 21, (1904) 1 CLR 497. Prior action(s) Peterswald v Bartley [1904] NSWStRp 28;
(1904) 4 SR (NSW) 290 Judge(s) sitting Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ People also search for Parton v Milk Board (Vic) | ||
Peterswald v Bartley is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.
Contents
Background
Bartley was a brewer of beer at Cootamundra in the state of New South Wales. He had a licence under the Commonwealth Beer Excise Act 1901 however he didn't have a licence under the NSW Liquor Act 1898. Sergeant Peterswald was a police officer and District Licensing Inspector and he charged Bartley with carrying on the trade or business of a brewer without holding a licence under the NSW Act and the issue concerned the payment of a licence fee. The Police Magistrate upheld Bartley's contention that the licence fee was an excise duty and that the effect of section 90 of the Australian Constitution was that the state Act ceased to have effect once the Commonwealth imposed uniform customs duties. Peterswald appealed to the Supreme Court of NSW, where the Sergeant was represented by the then Attorney-General of NSW, Bernhard Wise KC. The Supreme Court, by a majority, Darley CJ and Owen J, dismissed the appeal. Pring J dissented.
Decision
Griffith CJ delivered the judgement of the court, holding that an excise is a customs duty imposed on goods either in relation to quantity or value when produced or manufactured and not in the sense of a direct or personal tax. His Honour outlined four elements of an excise:
His Honour's requirement that the tax be imposed at the point of production or manufacture forms what is known as the narrow approach to section 90. The narrow approach was rejected by the High Court in Ha v New South Wales.