Fish Board v Paradiso [1956] HCA 60
The statutory requirement under section 27(1) of The Fish Supply Management Acts, if construed to apply to fish imported from interstate, constitutes an immediate and direct burden on interstate trade and thereby infringes section 92 of the Constitution; alternatively, section 27(1) should be construed as not extending to such fish, and the prosecution fails either way.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Complaint / High Court of Australia, Post Removal From Petty Sessions
- Outcome
- Complaint dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['interstate Trade' 'regulation of Commodities' 'statutory Interpretation' 'section 92 of the Constitution']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Complaint / High Court of Australia, Post Removal From Petty Sessions
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether section 27(1) of The Fish Supply Management Acts 1935 to 1951 (Qld) applies to fish imported from outside Queensland and sold in Queensland' 'Whether the statutory scheme impermissibly burdens interstate trade contrary to section 92 of the Constitution']
Ratio Decidendi
The statutory requirement under section 27(1) of The Fish Supply Management Acts, if construed to apply to fish imported from interstate, constitutes an immediate and direct burden on interstate trade and thereby infringes section 92 of the Constitution; alternatively, section 27(1) should be construed as not extending to such fish, and the prosecution fails either way.
Court Disposition
Complaint dismissed
Orders
- ['Complaint dismissed' 'Costs of the defendant in the court of petty sessions and in this Court to be taxed and paid by the complainant board']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment