R v Vizzard [1933] HCA 62

R v Vizzard [1933] HCA 62

A majority of the High Court held that the State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931 (NSW), in requiring licensing of public motor vehicles, was not invalid as contravening s 92 of the Constitution because its primary intent was not to hinder or control inter-State trade, but to coordinate and regulate public transport within NSW for the benefit of the public, and any impact on inter-State trade was incidental rather than direct or purposeful. However, dissenting opinions argued that any licensing scheme that operates to restrict the freedom of inter-State carriage is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee in s 92.

Parties
Respondent: The King; Informant: Frederick William Vizzard (officer of the Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways); Applicant/defendant: Price Alexander Hill
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law Application for Prohibition / High Court Appeal From Conviction/removal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged; application for prohibition dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Inter State Trade, Licensing of Public Motor Vehicles, Interpretation of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, State Legislative Powers, Freedom of Trade, Commerce, And Intercourse
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Inter State Trade Licensing of Public Motor Vehicles Interpretation of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution State Legislative Powers Freedom of Trade, Commerce, and Intercourse

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 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Respondent

Frederick William Vizzard (officer of the Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways)

Informant

Price Alexander Hill

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law Application for Prohibition / High Court Appeal From Conviction/removal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931 (NSW), s 12, as applied to the operation of a motor vehicle engaged in inter-State transport, contravene s 92 of the Australian Constitution?
  2. 2 Is a State Act regulating licensing of vehicles constitutionally invalid to the extent it applies to inter-State trade or commerce?
  3. 3 What is the correct approach to determining whether a State law infringes the Constitutional guarantee of 'absolute freedom' of trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States?

Ratio Decidendi

A majority of the High Court held that the State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931 (NSW), in requiring licensing of public motor vehicles, was not invalid as contravening s 92 of the Constitution because its primary intent was not to hinder or control inter-State trade, but to coordinate and regulate public transport within NSW for the benefit of the public, and any impact on inter-State trade was incidental rather than direct or purposeful. However, dissenting opinions argued that any licensing scheme that operates to restrict the freedom of inter-State carriage is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee in s 92.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged; application for prohibition dismissed; conviction upheld.

Orders

  • Application for order nisi dismissed.
  • Conviction stands.