Telstra Corporation v Hurstville City Council [2000] FCA 1887

Telstra Corporation v Hurstville City Council [2000] FCA 1887

Local government rates and charges on telecommunications carriers' cables, imposed under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and Local Government Act 1989 (Vic), are not invalid as duties of excise, nor rendered inapplicable by Commonwealth statutes; charges are compensation for occupation/use of public land or valid land taxes and not taxes on goods. Neither clause 60 nor clause 44 of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) operates to exclude State law application, as clause 44(1) is not a law supporting s109 inconsistency. The imposition of charges/rates pursued no extraneous or improper purpose outside powers conferred under respective Local Government Acts. Proceedings...

Parties
First Applicant: Telstra Corporation Limited; Second Applicant: Telstra Multimedia Pty Limited; First Applicant: Optus Vision Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Optus Networks Pty Limited; First Respondent: Hurstville City Council; Second Respondent: Kogarah Municipal Council; Third Respondent: Leichhardt Municipal Council; Fourth Respondent: Parramatta City Council; Fifth Respondent: Penrith City Council; Sixth Respondent: Randwick City Council; Seventh Respondent: Hornsby Shire Council; Eighth Respondent: Drummoyne Council; Ninth Respondent: Burwood Council; Tenth Respondent: Concord Council; Eleventh Respondent: Strathfield Municipal Council; Twelfth Respondent: Bayside City Council; Thirteenth Respondent: Moreland City Council; Fourteenth Respondent: Frankston City Council; Fifteenth Respondent: Yarra City Council; First Respondent: Warringah Council; Third Respondent: Blacktown City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings Challenging Validity and Application of State and Local Charges/rates on Telecommunications Infrastructure / Final Judgment After Joint Hearing of Two Related Matters
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of State Imposts as Excise Duty, Interpretation of Telecommunications Statutes, Discrimination Against Telecommunications Carriers Under Commonwealth Law, Jurisdiction of Federal Court, Improper Purpose in Rate/charge Imposition by Councils
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Telecommunications Law Local Government Law Validity of State Imposts as Excise Duty Interpretation of Telecommunications Statutes Discrimination Against Telecommunications Carriers Under Commonwealth Law Jurisdiction of Federal Court +1 more

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Telstra Corporation Limited

First Applicant

Telstra Multimedia Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Optus Vision Pty Limited

First Applicant

Optus Networks Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Hurstville City Council

First Respondent

Kogarah Municipal Council

Second Respondent

Leichhardt Municipal Council

Third Respondent

Parramatta City Council

Fourth Respondent

Penrith City Council

Fifth Respondent

Randwick City Council

Sixth Respondent

Hornsby Shire Council

Seventh Respondent

Drummoyne Council

Eighth Respondent

Burwood Council

Ninth Respondent

Concord Council

Tenth Respondent

Strathfield Municipal Council

Eleventh Respondent

Bayside City Council

Twelfth Respondent

Moreland City Council

Thirteenth Respondent

Frankston City Council

Fourteenth Respondent

Yarra City Council

Fifteenth Respondent

Warringah Council

First Respondent

Blacktown City Council

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings Challenging Validity and Application of State and Local Charges/rates on Telecommunications Infrastructure / Final Judgment After Joint Hearing of Two Related Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether local government rates and charges imposed on telecommunications carriers' broadband cables are invalid as duties of excise under s90 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether State laws authorising rates/charges are excluded by clause 60 of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether State laws or their application to the applicants are rendered ineffective by reason of discrimination under clause 44 of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Local government rates and charges on telecommunications carriers' cables, imposed under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and Local Government Act 1989 (Vic), are not invalid as duties of excise, nor rendered inapplicable by Commonwealth statutes; charges are compensation for occupation/use of public land or valid land taxes and not taxes on goods. Neither clause 60 nor clause 44 of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) operates to exclude State law application, as clause 44(1) is not a law supporting s109 inconsistency. The imposition of charges/rates pursued no extraneous or improper purpose outside powers conferred under respective Local Government Acts. Proceedings...

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • The proceeding be dismissed.
  • The applicants (Telstra Corporation Limited and Telstra Multimedia Pty Limited; also Optus Vision Pty Limited and Optus Networks Pty Limited) pay to the respondents their costs of the proceeding.