Whitehouse v Queensland [1960] HCA 11

Whitehouse v Queensland [1960] HCA 11

By majority, the High Court held that the annual fees imposed by s. 18(1) of The Liquor Acts 1912 to 1958 (Q.) were not duties of excise and did not contravene s. 90 of the Constitution. The demurrer to the statement of claim was allowed.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Demurrer / Judgment
Outcome
Demurrer allowed
Legal Topics
['excise Duties' 'state Legislative Power' 'validity of Statute' 'licensing Fees']
['constitutional Law' 'taxation Law'] ['excise Duties' 'state Legislative Power' 'validity of Statute' 'licensing Fees']

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

Procedural Posture

Demurrer / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the annual licence fee imposed by s. 18(1) of The Liquor Acts 1912 to 1958 (Q.) is a duty of excise within the meaning of s. 90 of the Constitution and thus beyond the legislative power of the State.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the High Court held that the annual fees imposed by s. 18(1) of The Liquor Acts 1912 to 1958 (Q.) were not duties of excise and did not contravene s. 90 of the Constitution. The demurrer to the statement of claim was allowed.

Court Disposition

Demurrer allowed

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff to pay the costs of the demurrer.']