D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1

D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1

A State Act imposing stamp duty on a receipt given by a federal officer for his salary is an unconstitutional interference with exclusive Commonwealth power, and such general words in the Act must be construed not to apply to federal transactions; the Tasmanian Act is invalid in its application to federal officer salary receipts.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: H. L. D'Emden; Respondent/complainant: F. Pedder
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Tasmania to High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Federal State Relations, Taxation, Interpretation of Commonwealth Constitution, Stamp Duty
Constitutional Law Federal State Relations Taxation Interpretation of Commonwealth Constitution Stamp Duty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. L. D'Emden

Appellant/defendant

F. Pedder

Respondent/complainant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Tasmania to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether stamp duty imposed by a Tasmanian statute applies to receipts given by federal officers for salary
  2. 2 Whether such a State law interferes with the exclusive legislative power of the Commonwealth
  3. 3 Whether the effect of the State law is inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation or constitutional authority

Ratio Decidendi

A State Act imposing stamp duty on a receipt given by a federal officer for his salary is an unconstitutional interference with exclusive Commonwealth power, and such general words in the Act must be construed not to apply to federal transactions; the Tasmanian Act is invalid in its application to federal officer salary receipts.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • conviction quashed with costs
  • respondent to pay appellant's costs in Supreme Court and High Court