J & J Ward Pty Ltd v Williams [1969] HCA 65

J & J Ward Pty Ltd v Williams [1969] HCA 65

The appellant's operation of the vehicle at Hamilton was part of inter-State trade or commerce: if the carriage was treated as a second journey, it was from Mt. Gambier in South Australia to Hamilton in Victoria, and if it was treated as one continuous journey from Geelong to Hamilton, the crossing into South Australia and recrossing into Victoria were integral to the operation rather than a mere diversion. Accordingly the vehicle was protected by s. 92 of the Constitution and the conviction under s. 22 (1) of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 Vict. could not stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction for an Offence Against the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 Vict. / High Court Appeal From Conviction by the Court of Petty Sessions at Hamilton, Brought Pursuant to S. 39 (2) (b) of the Judiciary Act 1903 1969 Cth
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; conviction quashed and magistrate's order set aside.
Legal Topics
['s. 92 of the Constitution' 'inter State Trade, Commerce and Intercourse' 'commercial Goods Vehicle Licensing' 'operation of Commercial Goods Vehicles on Public Highways']
['constitutional Law' 'transport Law' 'trade and Commerce'] ['s. 92 of the Constitution' 'inter State Trade, Commerce and Intercourse' 'commercial Goods Vehicle Licensing' 'operation of Commercial Goods Vehicles on Public Highways']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Conviction for an Offence Against the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 Vict. / High Court Appeal From Conviction by the Court of Petty Sessions at Hamilton, Brought Pursuant to S. 39 (2) (b) of the Judiciary Act 1903 1969 Cth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's vehicle, when operated at Hamilton carrying goods loaded at Geelong and taken via Mt. Gambier, was being used exclusively in the course of inter-State trade, commerce or intercourse." 'Whether s. 22 (1) of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 Vict. applied, or was made inapplicable by s. 4 of that Act or by s. 92 of the Constitution.' "Whether the crossing and recrossing of the State border were integral to the appellant's carriage operation or merely a diversionary incident to intra-State carriage."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's operation of the vehicle at Hamilton was part of inter-State trade or commerce: if the carriage was treated as a second journey, it was from Mt. Gambier in South Australia to Hamilton in Victoria, and if it was treated as one continuous journey from Geelong to Hamilton, the crossing into South Australia and recrossing into Victoria were integral to the operation rather than a mere diversion. Accordingly the vehicle was protected by s. 92 of the Constitution and the conviction under s. 22 (1) of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 Vict. could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; conviction quashed and magistrate's order set aside.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Conviction quashed and order of the magistrate set aside.' 'Matter remitted to the magistrate to dismiss the information with such orders as to costs and otherwise as are proper.']