Vanderstock v Victoria [2023] HCA 30

Vanderstock v Victoria [2023] HCA 30

Section 7(1) of the ZLEV Charge Act, by imposing a distance-based charge on the use (consumption) of zero or low emission vehicles, is an invalid duty of excise under s 90 of the Constitution because duties of excise include all inland taxes on goods, including those imposed at the stage of consumption or use....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Christopher Vanderstock; Plaintiff: Kathryn Vanderstock (Anor); Defendant: The State of Victoria; Intervener: Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the Northern Territory (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (intervening); Amicus Curiae: Australian Trucking Association
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Special Case (original Jurisdiction) / High Court of Australia – Full Court (judgment and Orders)
Outcome
Special case answered: s 7(1) of the ZLEV Charge Act is invalid for imposing a duty of excise; costs to the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Excise Duties, Taxes on Goods, Section 90 of the Constitution, State Taxation Power, Duties of Customs and Excise, Validity of State Taxes, Federalism
Constitutional Law Excise Duties Taxes on Goods Section 90 of the Constitution State Taxation Power Duties of Customs and Excise Validity of State Taxes Federalism

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Vanderstock

Plaintiff

Kathryn Vanderstock (Anor)

Plaintiff

The State of Victoria

Defendant

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the Northern Territory (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (intervening)

Intervener

Australian Trucking Association

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Special Case (original Jurisdiction) / High Court of Australia – Full Court (judgment and Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is s 7(1) of the Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 (Vic) invalid for imposing a duty of excise within the meaning of s 90 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Can a tax on consumption or use of goods constitute a duty of excise?
  3. 3 Should Dickenson's Arcade v Tasmania be reopened and overruled?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 7(1) of the ZLEV Charge Act, by imposing a distance-based charge on the use (consumption) of zero or low emission vehicles, is an invalid duty of excise under s 90 of the Constitution because duties of excise include all inland taxes on goods, including those imposed at the stage of consumption or use. Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania, insofar as it treated taxes on consumption as outside s 90, is overruled. The charge is not a fee for service, is sufficiently closely connected to the goods, and has a tendency to affect demand for those goods.

Court Disposition

Special case answered: s 7(1) of the ZLEV Charge Act is invalid for imposing a duty of excise; costs to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Section 7(1) of the Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 (Vic) is invalid as it imposes a duty of excise within the meaning of s 90 of the Constitution.
  • The State of Victoria is to pay the costs of the proceeding.