THE OPERATION OF THE MAXIM
*WHAT CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY CANNOT BE DONE INDIRECTLY1 IN PUBLIC LAW
* * *
D. K. Singh
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the
Q
3 S / < ^
\/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the course of writing this thesis my greatest debt of gratitude is due to Professor Geoffrey Sawer, who, during the period of my stay at the Australian Nation al University, acted as supervisor of my research. He gave me not only the guidance which is expected of him as a well-known authority in the field of public law, but
the encouragement and generous and stimulat ing advice which are the rare attributes of a true master; indeed, it has been one of the most pleasant experiences of my life to be associated with him. I may be permitted
to add that the very idea of writing this thesis was suggested by him, and since then he has never ceased to assist me at
difficult points at the expense of much time and effort and, above all, to get over difficulties I had about my English.
I should like to thank Dr S. J. Stoljar, Mr P. Brazil and the late Professor Ross
Anderson, who extended their help in more than one way. My thanks are also due to Mrs A. Edwards for her excellent secretarial
assistance in the production of this thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRECIS ( v i )
TABLE OF CASES ( x x i )
I I n t r o d u c t i o n 1
PART OLE. O p e r a t i o n o f o u r Maxim i n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law - G e n e r a l
I I U n i t e d S t a t e s o f Am e ric a 23
I I I Canada 58
IV A u s t r a l i a 90
V S o u t h A f r i c a 166
PART TWO. O p e r a t i o n o f o ur Maxim i n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law
VI D o c t r i n e o f U l t r a V i r e s 212
V I I S u p e r v i s o r y J u r i s d i c t i o n 268
PART THREE. Some S p e c i a l P r o b l e m s o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law
V I I I S . 9 2 o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n C o n s t i t u t i o n 290
IX P r e f e r e n c e and D i s c r i m i n a t i o n o r Lack o f U n i f o r m i t y i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n Con
s t i t u t i o n 3 3 6
Page
XI S.II7 of the Australian Constitution 371 XII Legislative Schemes 377 PART FOUR. Logical Status, Meaning and
Force of our Maxim
XIII Logical Status of our Maxim *+29 XIV Meaning of our Maxim RA2
XV Force of our Maxim b6b
APPENDIX
Table of Illustrative Constitutional
Cases h7b
[image:5.501.40.484.69.687.2]P R E C I S
This thesis is concerned with a formal problem which arises in the judicial review of laws limiting
the range of governmental powers. Vast problems of a legal nature are posed in the observance of limitations imposed on governmental powers. Presumably the solu tion must be found in the working of judicial machinery - courts being the watchdog of constitutional provisions; no-one would deny the role played by courts in the
growth and development of constitutionalism. The judicial practice involves a set of ‘’unwritten” rules for the guidance of courts in the understanding (or interpretation) of "written” law s , including written constitutions. One of such rules is the observance of "good faith” in the exercise of governmental powers, and it is implied in the maxim *What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly*.
This study is confined to English language systems, and to predominantly English common-law systems; South Africa is included, but the South African cases consid ered are also mainly English common-law in their
(vii)
ideological background. Nevertheless, the range of constitutional and administrative systems is reasonably wide.
In casual conversation, even among lawyers, one often gets an impression that the maxim has not much force in limiting the acts or actions of governments, since so many schemes, which may be of great consequence politically or otherwise, have received the approval of
courts even though they were designed to achieve some thing that was not permissible, or have been carried through without judicial challenge. Here an attempt is made to examine the implications and intricacies in the
operation of the maxim and assess its importance or usefulness as a rule of constitutional interpretation. It is a selective, not an exhaustive, study. The aim is to focus attention on the problems emphasised here and stimulate further detailed examination from a
(viii)
CHAPTER I . Introduction.
The origin of our maxim is not clearly traceable, though it has some resemblance to two of CokeTs Legal Maxims which primarily relate to the field of private law; however, one of them is occasion ally mentioned in the field of public law conveying the same sense as that of our maxim. But it is the doctrine of ultra vires that implies our maxim as one of the grounds of invalidation and estab lished its operation more specifically in the field of public law.
PART O R E . Operation of our Maxim in Constitutional Law - General.
Some features of the operation of our maxim are examined by reference to the constitutions of the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa.
CHAPTER I I . United States of A merica.
The inquiry is confined to the powers to tax and to spend, as their use appears to be readily
(ix)
confiscatory nature, or highly exhorbitant, or with the sole purpose of penalising certain
conduct, and also if it is accompanied by an examption on condition requiring the surrender of guaranteed liberties. Similarly, it would be an improper use of the power to spend if govern mental aids or benefits were offered to citizens,
or to states, on conditions (as instruments for the regulation of conduct) which have no relation to legitimate public interest, or operate in an arbitrary or unreasonable fashion, or tend to invade guaranteed liberties. The same is equally true in cases of States* powers although
unenumerated.
CHAPTER I I I . Canada.
(x)
are defined by reference to purpose. Our maxim may also apply to a situation involving inter
delegation of powers between the Dominion Parliament and provincial legislatures.
CHAPTER IV. Australia.
The possible occasions for invoking our maxim are many; most of the examples are from decided cases, but some well-known "devices’1 not the subject of
judicial decision are mentioned. The most obvious case is that of the taxing power, Commonwealth or State, which may be used to achieve something that is prohibited or not within the powers of the
legislature concerned. There is uncertainty as to the limits of the use of that power. One extreme is Barger*s Case^ , which restrained the Commonwealth from using exemption from tax as a sanction from enforcing specified conduct in any field; the other extreme is OsborneTs Case^, which permitted the Commonwealth to tax a particular occupation or
article as heavily as it pleases in order to achieve
1
R. v. Barger (1908) 6 C.L.R. 41. 2
(xi)
1 indirect1 purposes. The High Court appears to have been more favourably disposed towards the
latter approach, although the former has never been overruled - in fact it is usually referred to in terms implying its correctness. Other examples are provided by the Commonwealth appropriation and defence powers; these powers involve the notion of purpose and are not without limits. On the other hand, s.
96
, the power to make grants to the States, being a non-coercive power, illustrates a situation where our maxim is likely to have limited (or no)application.
CHAPTER V . South A f r i c a .
(xii)
procedure. However, after the Amendment Act courts were left with no jurisdiction to review Acts of Parliament in this context.
PART TWO. Operation of our Maxim in Administrative Law.
This part illustrates the operation of our maxim as
implied in the judicial control of administrative author ities. The field of administrative law provides more varied aspects of our maxim1s application, and without
such discussion this analysis would be incomplete. However, the present discussion is restricted, because fairly exhaustive studies have already been made in this regard, notably that of Professor S.
A.
de Smith. The bulk of administrative cases iS formidable, but for the most part they do not involve the analytical difficultiesof constitutional cases, being more readily related to factual problems of good faith.
CHAPTER VI. Doctrine of Ultra Vires.
(xiii)
of discretionary power by reference to purpose not authorised under the Act; if the authorised purpose is vague or indefinite, courts try to define its scope by looking into the context and setting of the Act; even if there is no reference to purpose in the Act, courts do not assume the conferment of an unfettered discretion in absolute terms.
However, in the absence of any purpose being expressly mentioned, or if mentioned it being of vauge or indefinite description, courts are less likely to find a ready basis for preventing an abuse of statutory powers. There is a difference in approach between an ultra vires act done in good faith and an ultra vires act done in bad faith. In the latter case courts may permit the tendering of evidence as to the extraneous or ultenor motives which come into consideration, whereas in the former they may distinguish between purpose and
motive and regard the presence of motive, authorised or unauthorised, as immaterial. In case of "author- ised" and “unauthorised" purposes inextricably
(xiv)
’’substanthl”; (b) ’’Extraneous or irrelevant con siderations” imply an exercise of discretionary
power by reference to irrelevant collateral matters, even though the authority may have acted in com plete good faith. What are, and what are not,
legitimate considerations is open to wide differences of opinion. However, the wider the discretion the less possible it becomes to identify relevant
considerations• Moreover, it is rather a matter of construction depending upon the nature and character of the Act. If an authority does not state its
reasons, it is all the more difficult to challenge on grounds of irrelevant considerations; (c) ’’Un reasonableness” has in practice virtually come to embrace other grounds of invalidy.
CHAPTER VII. Supervisory Jurisdiction.
( X V )
f o r t h e c o u r t s t o f i n d a way a r o u n d them i n w h a t
t h e y r e g a r d a s g r o s s c a s e s of a b u s e of p o w e r . I n
t h e A u s t r a l i a n f e d e r a l s p h e r e , t h e Hi gh C o u r t i s
g i v e n s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n by s . 7 5 ( v ) o f t h e
C o n s t i t u t i o n t o i s s u e mandamus o r p r o h i b i t i o n t o
f e d e r a l t r i b u n a l s , an d s u c h c l a u s e s may be o f no
e f f e c t i n so f a r a s a f e d e r a l t r i b u n a l p u r p o r t s t o
a c t b e y o n d t h e p o w e r s of t h e f e d e r a l P a r l i a m e n t ,
PART THREE. Some S p e c i a l P r o b l e m s o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law,
T h i s p a r t d e a l s w i t h s p e c i a l p r o b l e m s r e l a t i n g t o
1p r o h i b i t i o n * s i t u a t i o n s and l e g i s l a t i v e s c h e m e s . P r o
h i b i t i o n 1 s i t u a t i o n s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d by s . 9 2 , s . 5 ‘1 ( i i ) 3
s . 5 1 ( i i i ) j s . 9 9 j S . 1 1 6 and s . 117 o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n
C o n s t i t u t i o n . How eve r, t h e number o f r e l e v a n t d e c i d e d
c a s e s a nd e v e n j u d i c i a l d i c t a i s v e r y u n e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d
b e t w e e n t h e s e t o p i c s ; a s t o some a f a i r body o f a u t h o r i t a
t i v e i l l u s t r a t i o n i s g i v e n b u t a s t o o t h e r s we c a n o n l y
s p e c u l a t e . L e g i s l a t i v e schem es r a i s e p r o b l e m s d i f f e r e n t
f r o m t h o s e o f s i n g l e s t a t u t e s ; a number o f s t a t u t e s , e a c h
p r i m a f a c i e v a l i d , may be so d e s i g n e d a s t o a c h i e v e by
t h e i r j o i n t e f f e c t s o m e t h i n g t h a t c o u l d n o t be a c h i e v e d
(xvi)
CHAPTER V I I I . S.92 of the Australian Constitution (freedom of inter-State trade,
commerce and intercourse).
There are not very many cases in which our maxim has found express application; however, the interpreta
tion of s.92 has assumed a form which has the
potential of providing an extraordinarily flexible judicial device for striking down legislation
designed to infringe s.92 by 1 circuitous m eans1 or * concealed designs1 . Some illustrations from
decisions and dicta are given.
CHAPTER I X . Preference and Discrimination or Lack of Uniformity in the Australian Consti tution (viz, s.51 (ii) , s.T'Hiii) and s.99. Having regard to the eentral place our maxim has come
to occupy in relation to s.92, one might reasonably have expected the courts likewise to be astute in recognising evasions of the substantial purpose of
those sections. In fact, this has not happened. Occasional dissents, however, indicate the lines
along which this part of the law might have developed. C H A P T E R X . S.116 of the Australian Constitution
(religious toleration).
(xvii)
of legislative power, has a history giving it more the character of the American "civil liberties". Paucity of authority makes confident opinion impossible, but both substantial and procedural difficulties expose this guarantee to comparatively easy evasion.
CHAPTER XI. S.117 of the Australian Constitution
(discrimination on ground of ^residence1) .
Since there is only one decision, it is not safe to say to what extent our maxim would apply. However, this prohibition is capable of evasion by *devicest , and capable of protection by the ready application of our maxim.
CHAPTER XII. Legislative Schemes.
In general courts have not readily examined the
(xviii)
evade a constitutional prohibition; still less so if the ultimate aim is to achieve some purpose only impliedly forbidden by the Constitution, or some purpose merely ultra vires, or if the interaction of
the relevant statutes is not evident on inspection. Perhaps in Canada, there might be slighly better opportunity to strike down a legislative scheme because of the double enumeration of powers and the fact that many powers are defined by reference to purpose. However, in South Africa any reference to object or purpose of a legislative scheme was
regarded as altogether irrelevant. To the extent that courts have permitted such schemes, they may be regarded as a limitation on the operation of our maxim.
PART FIVE. Logical Status, Meaning and Force of our Maxim.
In this part an attempt is made to understand and analyse the underlying idea of our maxim in the light of the above discussion.
CHAPTER XIII. Logical Status of our Maxim.
(xix)
analytical than evaluative. One of the cardinal rules of interpretation in private law is the ob servance of "good faith", which is implied in our maxim, and this rule has been logically adopted in
the field of constitutional law wherever there is provision for a limited governmental power. Even if
our maxim is provided as part of positive law, one can imagine its having no more significance than it has in its present position as "unwritten" or
"extra-positive" law,
CHAPTER X I V . Meaning of our M a x i m .
The main difficulty with our maxim arises from the words "directly" and "indirectly"; it assumes that a government authority with limited powers, which has power to do something "directly", may also employ
that power so as to do other things which may be described as "indirect". One possible explanation is that our maxim attributes one and only one charac terisation attribute to a law; in other words, the problem of characterisation is to distinguish
(xx)
the “indirection11 is in the dressing up. It is relatively simple to apply the latter distinction in private law and many administrative law contexts, hut relatively difficult in constitutional contexts.
CHAPTER XV. Force of our Maxim.
For the present purpose, the discussion is confined to seventy-four constitutional cases. An analysis of these cases show that our maxim has considerable force in exercising restraint on legislatures with
TABLE OF CASES
A b b o t t v • C i t y o f S t J o h n • .
A d e l a i d e Co. o f J e h o v a h * s W i t n e s s e s v .
Commonwealth 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 , 3 5 8 , 370? 4 7 4 ,
76
j
A d l e r v • B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n
A m a lg a m a te d S o c i e t y o f E n g i n e e r s v . A d e l a i d e S t e a m s h i p Co, L td
( E n g i n e e r s * C a s e ) 21", 9 0 , A m e r i c a n C o m m u n i c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n v
Douds A n d e r s o n v .Anderson v
The
Commonwealth
_________ Wass; e x , p a r t e Wass Andrews v . D i p r o s e
Andrews v . H o w e l l •
A n t i l l R a n g e r & Co. P t y L t d v f o r Motor T r a n s p o r t
A r m s t r o n g v , V i c t o r i a ( N o . 2)
4 7 4 , 4 7 8 , 481 5 4 , 4 74
1 3 1 , 16 5, 473
5 5 , 56 12 5, 3 6 8 , 465 279 221 , 2 2 6 , 244
C o m m i s s i o n e r
3 2 6 , 3 2 8 , 4 7 4 , 4 7 8 ,
A r t h u r Y a t e s & Co. P t y L t d v . V e g e t a b l e
Se e d s Committee 2 2 3 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 5 , Ashwander v . T e n n e s s e e V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y
A s s o c i a t e d P r o v i n c i a l P i c t u r e Ho u se s L t d
v . W ed ne sb u ry C o r p o r a t i o n 2 1 7 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 4 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 , 2 6 3 , A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . G r e a t E a s t e r n Ry
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . H a n w e l l U .D . C .
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . L e i c e s t e r C o r p o r a t i o n A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . L i c h f i e l d C o r p o r a t i o n A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . M a n c h e s t e r C o r p o r a t i o n A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . M e r t h y r T y d f i l U n i o n
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . Tynemouth U n i o n . . 2 5 2 , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r A l b e r t a v • A t t o r n e y
-G e n e r a l f o r Canada 1 , 6 5 , 76', 4 7 4 , 4 7 8 , A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Br« C o lu m b ia v .
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Canada [ 1 9 3 7 ] A.C. 368 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r B r , C o lu m b ia v .
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Can ada [ 1 9 3 7 ] A.C. 377 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Canada v . A t t o r n e y -
G e n e r a l f o r A l b e r t a (F i r s t I n s u r a n c e
R e f e r e n c e C a s e l 5 9 , 6 8 , 6 9 , 8 1 , 4 7 4 , 4 7 8 , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r Can ada v . A t t o r n e y
-G e n e r a l f o r B r , C o l u m b i a 5 9 , 161 481 299 236 161 264 12 288 12 15 12 15 254 482 62 60 482 64
( x x i i )
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l for Canada v . A t t o r n e y
-G e n e ra l f o r O n t a r i o I 1937 I A.C. 326 • • 3 j 59 A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r Canada v . A t t o r n e y
-474, 4 7 8 , 582 G e n e ra l f o r O n t a r i o 3, 68, 83,
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Manitoba v .
75 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Canada 72, A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Manitoba v .
65 Manitoba L ic e n se H o l d e r s 1 A s s o c i a t i o n • •
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r New South Wales v . Brewery Employees1 Union of Hew
95 South Wales
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r New South Wales v . •
• 9 2 ,
C o l l e c t o r of Customs . . •• 95 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r New South Wales v .
474, 4 7 9 , 483 Homebush F l o u r M i l l s Ltd 106, 165,
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Nova S c o t i a v .
85, 4 7 1 , A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Canada
585 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o v . A ttor ney -575,
478, 482,
G e n e ra l f o r Canada 1.1896J A.C. 358 59, 60 , 62 A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o v . A tto rn ey
-G e n e ra l f o r Canada 19121 A.C. 571 • « • • 21 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o v . A ttor
ney-61 G e n e ra l f o r Canada I 1937 I A.C. 4-05 • • • •
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o v .
Attorney-G e n e ra l f o r Canada I 1947J A.C. 127 • • • • 89 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o v . Canadian
60 Temperance F e d e r a t i o n . . •• • •
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o v . R e c i p r o c a l I n s u r e r s
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o v . Winner•• 65, 68, 80, 474,• •
478, • •
582 71 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r V i c t o r i a v .
158, 162 Commonwealth ...
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r V i c t o r i a v . • •
Commonwealth ( P h a r m a c e u t i c a l B e n e f i t s Case )
A u s t r a l i a n B o o t T r a d e E m p l o y e e s 1 F e d e r a t i o n v • Whybrow & Co . A u s t r a l i a n C o a l and S h a l e E m p lo ye e s
F e d e r a t i o n v . A b e r f i e l d C o a l M i n i n g Co. L t d
A u s t r a l i a n Communist P a r t y v .
115, 121, 125, 575, 579, 582
. . 163
______ Commonwealth
157, 158, 1 6 0 , 161, 474,
A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l A i r w a y s v . Commonwealth
2 9 6 , 299, 303, 329,
A u s t r a l i a n Jam Co. P t y L td v . C o m m i s s i o n e r o f T a x a t i o n . • ...
. . 273 15 0 , >+79, >+83 29 1 , 333, 353
( x x i i i )
B a i l e y v . D r e x e l F u r n i t u r e Co. ( C h i l d
L a b o r Tax C a s e ) 2 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 3 2 7 + 3 7 ^ 8 , *+75, ^ 7 9 , 483 Ba nk o f New S o u t h W ale s v . Commonwealth • 9 5
2 8 2 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 3 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 , 330 B a r s k y v . B o a r d o f R e g e n t s •• . . ». . . 58 B a r t o n v . C o m m i s s i o n e r f o r M o t o r
T r a n s p o r t ... 3 2 8 , 4 7 9 , 481 B a x t e r v . Ah Way . . . , ... 22 B a x t e r v . C o m m i s s i o n e r o f T a x a t i o n . . 2 1 , 94 B a x t e r v . New S o u t h Wales C l i c k e r * s
A s s o c i a t i o n • • . ... . , . . 273 B e r r y v • P a l m e r s t o n M i l k B o a r d ... . 266 B i d d u l p h V, The V e s t r y o f S t G e o r g e ,
H a no ve r S q u a r e ... . . 223 , 227
B l a n c h a r d v . Dunl op 220
Bloxam v . M e t r o p o l i t a n R y . C o . ... 12 B o o t h v . Bank o f E n g l a n d . . . ... 6 B ow le s v . W i l l i n g h a m . . . , . . • , . . 231 B r e w e r s and M a l s t e r s A s s o c i a t i o n v .
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r O n t a r i o ... 64 B r i t i s h C o a l C o r p o r a t i o n v . The King . . . . 21 B r o a d c a s t i n g Co, o f A u s t r a l i a P t y L td
v . Commonwealth 261
Brown v . H o l y h e a d L o c a l B o a r d ... 15 Brown v . G r e e n . . ... 403 , 475 , 484 B r o w n e l l s L t d v . I r o n m o n g e r ' s Wages B o a r d 17 , 18 B r u n s w i c k C o r p o r a t i o n v . S t e w a r t ... 265
C . P . R . v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r
Br» Col um bi a ... 6'0, 71 C . P . R . v . P a r i s h o f N o t r e Dame de
B o n s e c o u r s 71
C a l i f o r n i a v . An gl im ... . . . . 51 Cam & Sons P t y L t d v . C h i e f S e c r e t a r y of
New S o u t h W a l e s
7
~. 3 0 8 , 4 7 4 , 4 7 9 , 481 Cameron v . D e p u t y F e d e r a l C o m m i s s i o n e ro f T a x a t i o n ... .. 3 4 7 , 3 4 8 , 349 C a m i n e t t i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s 3 4 C a n a d i a n F e d e r a t i o n o f A g r i c u l t u r e v .
(xxiv)
66, 76, V75, V79,
•• .. 3 0^ )
Caron v . The King
Carter v. Carter Coal C o .
Carter v. Potato Marketing Board Case of Sutton1s Hospital
Champion v. Ames ... 30, 33, Chesterman v . Federal Commission of
Taxation .. .. .. ... Chicago Board of Trade v . Olsen •.
Citizens1 Insurance C o . v .
Parsons •• 60, 61, 62, 6*+, 68, City of Toronto v. Bell Telephone C o .
Civil Rights Cases •• .. ..
Cleveland v • United States ...
Clyde Engineering C o . v. Cowburn 163 5 *+70, *+75? Cochran v . Louisiana State Board
of Education .. ...3^3 5 36*+, Collier Garland C o . v. Hotchkiss ... Collins v. B l a n t e r n ... .
Collins v. Minister of the Interior
rSenate Case) 192, 207, 209, 231, 424, 475, Colman v. Eastern County R. Co. .. .. 12, Colonial Bank of Australasia v . Willan
Commonwealth v.' Australian Commonwealth
Shipping Board ... Commonwealth v. New South Wales ... Commonwealth Freighters v. Sneddon .. .. 299, Cook v . Pennsy lvania ... ..
Co-operative Brick Co. Pty Ltd v .
Hawthorn Corporation .. ... Corporation of Waterford v. Murphy ... Craig v. Hutt Valley Etc., Board ... Crandall v . Nevada .. .. .. ... Crawford v . Attorney-General for B r .
Columbia ... ... Crouch v • Commonwealth ... 148, Commonwealth Oil Refineries v. South
Australia 2, 104, 112, 301, 309,
311, 324, 469, 475, 479, 481,
Cunningham v . Tomey Homma
Damodhar Gordhan v . De or am Kan.iii Davies and Jones v • Western Australia Dawson v. Commonwealth
Deakin v. Grimshaw ... Deakin v. Webb ... D*Emden v. Pedder ...
8,
372,
326, 9, . . 9
(xxv)
Demetriades, v. Glasgow Corporation .. .. 229 Pi one v. Montreal .. .. ... 264 Dormer v.Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation .. 223 Downs Transport Pty Ltd v .Kropp .. .. .. 278
Duncan v. Queensland ... 11, 292
Earl Fitzwilliam1 s Wentworth Estates C o . Ltd V. Minister of Town and Country
Planning ... . .. 233, 23*+, 237 Eastern Counties R y . v. Hawks ... ... 13 Elliott v. Commonwealth and Another 338, 3 3 9 5 340,
344, 3 4 5, 346, 348, 349, 3 5 0, 475
Employers1 Liability Cases 32
Englart v . Walker; ex parte Englart .. .. 266 Estate and Trust Agencies (1937) Ltd
v . Singapore Improvement Trust .. .. 246 Estates L t d , v. .Asher .. .. ... 434 Ex parte Heffron ... 285 Ex parte Ringer .. ., .. ... 287
Ex parte WäLsh .. .. 145
Everson v. Board of Education .. 3 ^ 35 466, 475
Farey v. Burvett .. ... 139? 155 Federated Amalgamated Government R y . v .
New South Wales Ry. Traffic Employees1
Association ... 94 Federated Engine Drivers1 and Firemens1
Association of Australasia v .
Adelaide Chemical & Fertilizer C o ... 163
Federated Saw Mills & Co. E m ployees1 Association of Australia v. James
Moore & Sons Pty Ltd ... 163
Fergusson v. Stevenson .. .. 314, 475, 479, 481 Field Peas Marketing Board (Tas.) v .
Clements and Marshall Pty Ltd 303, 305, 321 Fielding v. Thomas ... 21 First Unitarian Church v . County of Los
Angeles 28
Fish Board v. Paradiso .. .. 2 9 8, 3 0 7, 310,
( x x v i )
F o r b e s v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r M a n i t o b a • . • . 76 F o r t F r a n c e s P u l p and P a p e r Co . L t d , V.
M a n i t o b a F r e e P r e s s L td 60
F o s t e r v . A l o n i
F o x v . R o b b i n s 3 2 5 , 3 2 6 , 475, V 7 9 , 1+81
G. G. C r e s p i n & Son v . C o l a c C o - o p e r a t i v e
F a r m e r s L td • • 92
G a l l a g h e r v . Lynn 1
G a l l o w a y v . Mayor and Commonalty o f London • • 218
G o l d s a c k v . Sh or e 278
Gr an d T r u n k Ry. v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Canada 2 1 , 71 G r a n n a l v . Geo, K e l l a w a y & Sons P t y , , L td 2 9 8 , SO?, 317 G r a n n a l v . M a r r i c k v i l l e M a r g a r i n e P t y L td 10,
291 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 4 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 7 , 3 5 4 , 3 5 5 , 475
G r a t w i c k v . J o h n s o n 35 4
G r e a t West S a d d l e r y Co. v . The King 6 0 , 6 2 ,
6 4 , 7 2 , 7 3 , 7 6 , 4 7 5 , 4 7 9 , k82
G r e c h v . B i r d • • 261
G r o s . i e a n v . A m e r i c a n P r e s s Co. 32
Gunner v . H e l d i n g 26k
Guy V. B a l t i m o r e • • • • 2 9 , 3 0 , 4 7 6 , 4 7 9 , 483
Hammer v . D a g e n h a r t 2 5 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 6 , 4 7 6 , 4 7 9 , 483
H a n so n v . R a d c l i f f e U.D.C. 220
H a r i v . S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r I n d i a • • 19
Harman v . B u t t 2 5 0 , 251
H a r r i s v . M i n i s t e r o f t h e I n t e r i o r
( V o t e Case) 17 2, 179, 205
H e a l e y v . M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h 268
H e i n e r v . S c o t t 9^
H e l v e r i n g v . D a v i s 4 3 , ^ 5 , 50
Henwood v . M u n i c i p a l Tramways T r u s t ( S. A . ) • • 231
H e ydo nTs Case 434
H i l l V. W a l l a c e 2 5 , >+9
H i p o l i t e Egg Co. v . U n i t e d . S t a t e s • • • • • • 3*+
Hodge V. Queen 2 2 , 67
Hoke V. U n i t e d S t a t e s 3k
Hop pe r V. The Egg B o a r d • • 105
H o s p i t a l P r o v i d e n t Fund P t y L t d v .
V i c t o r i a . . 2 9 1 , 2 9 4 , 331
H u d d a r t P a r k e r & Co. P t y L t d v . Moor eh ead 9 2 , 9*+
( x x v i i )
Hughes and V a l e P t y L t d v . New S o u t h
Wales (N0 . I K 2 9 9 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 8 , 2 9 9 ,
3 0 1 , 3 1 7 , 3 2 V, 3 2 6 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 , 3 ^ 5 Hughes and V a l e P t y L t d v . New S o u t h 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 ,
W al es (No. 2) . 299-, 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 1 , 3 0 3 , 3 2 0 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 *+5 355 Hughes and V a l e P t y L t d v . Q u e e n s l a n d . . . . 3 2 4 Hume v . H i g g i n s . . ... 14 7, 148
I n r e B o a r d of Commerce Act . . 5 9 , 6 0 , 61 , 67 I n r e Bowman . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 I n r e D e c i s i o n o f W a l k e r . . . . 2 1 5 , 2 3 0 , 252 I n r e I n s u r a n c e A c t o f Canada ( Second
I n s u r a n c e R e f e r e n c e C a s e ) 2 , 6 8 , 75< 4 7 6 , 4 7 9 , 482 I n s t i t u t e o f P a t e n t A g e n t s v . Lockwood 2 8 4 , 285
J a c k s o n S t a n f i e l d & Sons v . B u t t e r w o r t h . . 16 James v . Commonwea 1 t h C1928)3^9, 34-2, 34-3 < 3 4 4 , 3 4 6 , 347 James v . Commonwe a l t h ( 1936) 3 , 2 9 3 , 3 ° 3 , 3 2 2 , 3 2 9 , 330 Jam es v . Cowan . . . . . . 3 0 5 , 4 7 6 , 4 7 9 , 481 James v . S o u t h A u s t r a l i a • • . . 3 0 3 , 329 J a p a n e s e C a n a d i a n s , C o - o p e r a t i v e
Com mittee on v . Canada ... .. 2 2 , 60 J e f f e r i e s v . A l e x a n d e r . . . . ... 8 J e n k i n s v . Commonwealth . . . . . . . . 159, 476 J o h n De er e Plow Co. L t d v . W h a r to n . . 6 7 , 72 J o h n F a i r f a x & Sons L td v . New S o u t h Wales . . 112 J o n e s v . M e t r o p o l i t a n Meat I n d u s t r y B o a r d 2 2 7 , 264 J o n e s v . O p e l i k a . . . . ... • • 32 J u d d v . McKeon ... . . 360 J u d g e s v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a . I f o r S a s k a t c h e w a n 76 Jumhunna C o a l Mine v . The V i c t o r i a n C o a l
M i n e r s 1 A s s o c i a t i o n ... 21
King v . E a s t e r n T e r m i n a l E l e v a t o r Co. . . . . 63 Ki n g Empe ro r v • B e n o a r i L a i Sharma . . . . 231 King Gee C l o t h i n g Co. P t y L t d v . Commonwealth 264 Kr us e v . J o h n s o n . . . . ... 15, 263 K r y g g e r v . W i l l i a m s ... 3 ^ 0 , 4 7 6 , 4 8 0 , 481
( x x v i i i )
Lee Fa y v . V i n c e n t ... . . 372 L e t h b r i d g e N o r t h e r n I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t
v , I . O . F . . . BT7 W , 4 8 0 , 482
L i t t l e V, Commonwealth ... 145 L i v e r s i d g e v . A n d e r s o n . ... 236 L l o y d V, W a l l a c h ... .. . . 145 L o c h n e r v . New Y o r k ... .. . . •• . .
London County C o u n c i l v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l 12 , 15 L o v e l l v , G r i f f i n . . . . ... 382 Lower M a i n l a n d D a i r y P r o d u c t s S a l e s
A d j u s t m e n t Com mittee v . C r y s t a l
D a i r y L t d 65
Lymburn v . Maylan d . . . . 72
Madden v . N e l s o n and F o r t S h e p p a r d
Ry, Co. . . 2 , 2 1 , 7 1 , V7 6 , 4 8 0 , M a g d a l e n C o l l e g e Case ... . . 6 , Magor and S t M e l l o n s R . D . C . v . Newport
C o r p o r a t i o n
M a g r a t h v . G o l d s b r o u g h Mo rt Co. L t d
M a n d e v i l l e I s l a n d Fa r m s v . A m e r i c a n C r y s t a l Su ga r Co. ... .. M a n h a t t a n G e n e r a l E q u i p m e n t Co . v . C o m m i s s i o n e r M a n s e l l v . B e ck ... . • 2 9 4 , 301 , M a r b u r y v . M a d i s o n . . • • . . ... M a r cu s C l a r k & Co» L t d v . Commonwealth
( C a p i t a l I s s u e s C a s e )
T,
1*47, 15 8, 15 9, M a r s h a l l v . B l a c k p o o l C o r p o r a t i o n ... M a r t i n v . E c c l e s C o r p o r a t i o n • . ... M a s s a c h u s e t t s v , M e l l o n 4 7 , 5 0 , 5 4 , 1 1 5, 12 5, Mathews v . The C h i c o r y B o a r d . . . . •• 10 5, M c A r t h u r v . Q u e e n s l a n d ... 2 9 1 , M c A u l i f f e v . New B e d f o r dM c C a r t e r v . B r o d i e . . . . . . 2 9 3 , 2 9 8 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 1 , 3 1 7 , 3 2 0 , McCray v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ... 3 0 , 3 1 , M c C u l lo c h v . M a r y l a n d
McNee v . B a r r o w B r o s . Co m m is si on A g e n t s P t y
L t d (Egg P u l p Case! 3 1 2 , 3 2 1 , 3 2 3 , 4 7 6 , 4 8 0 , M e l b o u r n e C o r p o r a t i o n v . Commonwealth ( S t a t e
B a n k i n g C a s e ) 2 , 9 4 , 1 3 ^ , 1 4 3 , 4 1 4 , 4 7 8 , 4 8 0 , M i d d l e s e x Co u n t y C o u n c i l v . M i l l e r • . . . M i n i s t e r o f P u b l i c Works v • Duggan
M i n i s t e r o f t h e I n t e r i o r v . H a r r i s ( High
C o u r t C a s e ) . • . . 1 8 0 , 190, 1 9 4 , 1 9 5 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 5 , 2 0 8 , 4 7 8 , 4 8 0 ,
482 7
434 277
2 6 6 331 20
478
244 2 2 0 465 307
308
56
3 2 4
( x x i x )
M i n t y v . S y l v e s t e r . . ... 6 Moran v . D e p u t y F e d e r a l C o m m i s s i o n e r _ o f
T a x a t i o n ( 1 9 3 9 , H . C . , 194 0, P . C . ) 12 7, 1 2 8 , 138, 3 4 9 , 3 7 8 , 4 0 5 , 4 1 2 , 4 2 3 , 4 4 1 , 4 7 6 , 484 Morgan v . Commonwealth . . ...352 Morgan v . R y l a n d s B r o s ( A u s t r a l i a ) L t d . . •• 273 M o r r i s v • B l a c k m a n ... ... 6 M o r to n v . U n i o n S t e a m s h i p Co. o f New
Z e a l a n d L t d . . ... 261 , 262 Mu I f or d v . S m it h . . . . ... 43 M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l of Sydney v . C a m p b e ll 17,
2 1 8 , 2 3 4 , 241 Murdock v . P e n n s y l v a n i a ... 3 2 , 3&7 Murphy v . C a n a d i a n P a c i f i c Ry. Co. . . . . . . 88 M us gr ove v . Chung Tee Ong Toy . . . . . . . . 22
Nakkuda A l i v . J a y a r a t n e ... 216 Narma v . Bombay M u n i c i p a l C o m m i s s i o n e r . . • . 231 Ndlwana v . H o f m e y r , N.O... . . 16 9 , 1 7 7, 190 N e l u n g a l o o v . Commonwealth •• . . . . . . 471 New S o u t h Wal es v . Commonwealth . • •• •• 164 N i g r o v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ... 30
Ql G i l p i n L t d v . C o m m i s s i o n e r f o r Road
T r a n s p o r t and Tramways ( N . S . W . ) . . . . 301 Oklahoma v . U n i t e d S t a t e s C i v i l S e r v i c e
Com mission , . ... • . 5 3 , 476 Os bo rn e v . Commonwealth ... 10 2, 4 6 0 , 476 Osman v . Douds . . . . . . • . •• . . 55
P . J . M a g e n n i s P t y L t d v . Commonwealth 3 9 1 , 4 0 1 ,
401, 402, 403, 404,
i+05, 5o6, 1+23, 1+26, 566, 570,
4 7 1 , 4 7 6 , 4 8 0 , 484 P a s s e n g e r C a s e s • . • . . . . . • • . . 29 P e a n u t B o a r d v . Ro c k h am p to n H a r b o u r B o a r d 3 0 3 ,
(xxx)
Potato Marketing Board v. Willis and
Attorney-General for Canada 85, 86,
88, 466, 477, 484 Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation .. .. 216, 253 Proprietory Articles Trade Association v.
Attorney-General for Canada .. 60, 67
Proud v.Box Hill Corporation .* .. 266 Pye v. Renshaw .. 391? 4oi , 402, *+23, 4-77 5 484 R. v. Australian Stevedoring Industry B o a r d ;
ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co. Pty Ltd 254 R. v. Barger 71 77 .. 2^ 94^ 96
3V8 ,
31+9, 386, 387’
M+% ^60’
5
+
77
j
480, 484 R. V. Brighton; ex. parte Shoosmith 215? 231, 234-R. v. Brighton Corporation, ex. parteT, Tilling L t d ... 216 R. v. Broad ... .. 266 R. v. BuinLey Justices •• ... 249 R. v. Burgess; ex parte Henry .. .. .. 4o6 R. v. Central Sugar Cane Prices Board .. 275 R. v . Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and
Arbitration; ex parte the Brisbane
Tramways Co. .. ... 282
R. v. Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and
Arbitration: ex parte Grant ... 282
R. v. Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and
Arbitration; ex parte Jones ... 281
R. v . Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and
Arbitration: ex parte Victoria .. 140, 142
R. v. Commonwealth Court of Concilhtion and
Arbitration; ex parte WJhybrow & Co. .. .. 281
R. v . Commonwealth Rent Controller; ex parte National Mutual Life Association of
Australasia Ltd ... 282, 284 R. v. Connare; ex parte Wawn .. *. .. .. 317 R. v . Cornel; ex parte the Hetton Bellbird
Collieries L t d ... .. 247? 259 R. v . Drake-Brockman; ex parte Northern
Colliery P r o p r i e t o r s Association 282, 283? 284 R. v."Foster
77
149, 155, 160, 477, 480, 483 R. v. Hickman; ex parte Fox & Clinton 273, 274, 282 R. V.Kelly; ex parte Berman ... 283( x x x i )
R. v . K i r b y ; e x p a r t e T r a n s p o r t
W o r k e r s 1 U n i o n ... R. v . London Co u n t y C o u n c i l ; e x p a r t e
London and P r o v i n c i a l E l e c t r i c
T h e a t r e s L t d . . ... R, V, M a c f a r l a n e . . . „ ... R. v . M e d i c a l A p p e a l T r i b u n a l : e x p a r t e
G i l m o re ... .. ... R. V, M e t a l T r a d e s 1 E m p l o y e r s 1 A s s o c i a t i o n 273? R. v . M i n i s t e r of H e a l t h ; e x p a r t e D a v i s . . R. v . M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h ; e x p a r t e P o r e . . R. V, M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h ; e x p a r t e Y a f f £ 1 6 , 2 8 4 , R. V, M i n i s t e r of T r a n s p o r t ; e x p a r t e
U n m i n s t e r S e r v i c e s ... R. v . M u r r a y ; e x p a r t e P r o c t o r . . 273? 277? R . v . Nat B e l l L i q u o r s L td
R . v . Ndobe ... .. . . . . R. v • P a d d i n g 1m & S t M a r y l e b o n e R e n t
T r i b u n a l ... .. ... R. v . R o b e r t s ; e x p a r t e S c u r r & o r s .
R. v . S m i t h e r s ; e x p a r t e B e n s o n •• •• 291? R. v . S u t t o n . . •• . . ... h v , Thomson ... . . . . . . R. v • T r e b i l c o ; e x p a r t e F . S . F a l k i n e r &
Sons L td ... 2 1 5 , 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 , R. v . U n i v e r s i t y o f Sydney ... . . R# v . V e s t r y o f S t P a n c r a s ... R. v . War P e n s i o n s E n t i t l e m e n t A p p e a l
T r i b u n a l ; e x p a r t e B o t t
R. v . W i l k i n s o n ; e x p a r t e B r a z e 1 1 « G a r l i c k & Coy . » . . . .
R. & W. P a u l L t d v • Wheat Co m mi s si on ••
R a i l r o a d Co. v . P e n i s t o n •• ... Ra i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t B o a r d v . A l t o n
R a i l r o a d Co, . . 3 6 , 51? 4 6 6 , 477? 4 8 0 , R a i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t B o a r d v • Duquesne
Warehouse Co. . . . . . . . . . . •• R e a l E s t a t e I n s t i t u t e of New S o u t h
Wales V. B l a i r . . ... R e f e r e n c e r e A l b e r t a S t a t u t e s ... R e f e r e n c e r e O n t a r i o Farm P r o d u c t s M a r k e t i n g
B o a r d ... 85? R e f e r e n c e r e t h e N a t u r a l P r o d u c t s
M a r k e t i n g A c t . . . . •• . . •• •• R e f e r e n c e r e S e c t i o n 16 of t h e S p e c i a l War
Revenue A ct
R i c h e v . A s h b u ry R a i l w a y C a r r i a g e Co. . . 12, R o b e r t s v , Hopwood
TT
2 1 6 , 2 4 4 , 2 5 2 , 253? 2 6 2 , R o b i n s & Sons v . M i n i s t e r of H e a l t h . . ♦.(xxxii)
R o b i n s o n & Co, L t d , v . King ... 278 R o s s Chen oweth v . Hayes ... .. . . 279 R o s s i v . E d i n b u r g h C o r p o r a t i o n ... 260 R u s s e l l V, The Queen •• •• 6 0 , 6 5 ? 67? 7*1 R u s s e l l v . W a l t e r ... . . . 297
S a d l e r v . S h e f f i e l d C o r p o r a t i o n 2 2 0, 237? 2 3 8 , S c h n i d e r v . I r v i n g t o n ... S h a n a h a n v . S c o t t . . . . . . . . . . S h o r t v . P o o l e C o r p o r a t i o n . . 2 2 5 5 2 2 7 5 2 3 0 , Shrimp t o n v . Commonwealth 1 5 *+77? 58Ö, 5 8 3 , S l a t t e r y v . N a y l o r ... .. S l o a n v . P o l l a r d ... .. . . . . 159? S m i t h V, E a s t E l l o e R . D . C . •• . . 2 2 8 , 229? S m i t h v . McNally ... S o n z i n s h y v . U n i t e d S t a t e s . . 30? 33? 57? S o u t h A u s t r a l i a v . Commonwealth ( F i r s t U n i f o r m
Tax Case ~ 2~, h T , 9 2 , 1 2 8 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 0 , 1 5 1 , 1 6 1 , 165? 5 0 7 , 5 1 3 , 5 1 6 , 5 2 3 , 5 2 5 , 5 5 1 , 5 5 6 , 5 7 7 , S p e i s e r v . R a n d a l l ... 2 8 , S t e n h o u s e v . Coleman 1 0 1 , 13 8 , 1 5 1 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 1 , S t e w a r d Ma chine Co . v . D a v i s 3 8 , 53? 59? I 3 6 , S t e w a r t v . G r e a c e n . . ...
251 362 261 255 58 5 263 5 77 271 2 2 0 577 58 5 577 555 577 279
T a s m a n ia v . Commonwealth ... .. •• 21 T e n n a n t v . U n i o n Bank o f Canada . . . . . . 65 T h e a t r e de Luxe ( H a l i f a x ) L t d v . G l e d h i l l 2 5 8 , 250 Thompson v . R a n d w i c k C o r p o r a t i o n . . ' . . 251 T o r o n t o E l e c t r i c C o m m i s s i o n e r s v . S n i d e r 59 , 6 0 , 61
T o r o n t o v . F o r r e s t H i l l 1 8 , 265
T r u s t e e s of t h e London P a r o c h i a l
C h a r i t i e s v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l • • • • • • 287
Tunnock v . V i c t o r i a 3 9 1 , 9-0 1 , 4 0 2 , “+23, “+77, 58 5 Twickenham C o r p o r a t i o n v . S o l o s i g n s L t d • • • • 263
Tynemouth C o r p o r a t i o n v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l • • 16
U n i o n C o l l i e r y Co. o f B r i t i s h Col um bi a
v . B r y d e n • * t • 6 6, >+77, 5 8 0 , 582
U n i t e d P u b l i c W o rk e r s v . M i t c h e l l • 9 m • 5 3 , 55 U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B u t l e r 3 6 , 3 9 , 5 0 , 4 7 7 , 5 8 0 , 483 U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C o n s t a n t i n e m • 2 6 ? 2 7 ,
(xxxiii)
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . De W i t t U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Doremus U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K a h r i g e r U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L o v e t t U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Lowden U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S a n c h e z U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t e f f e n s
Vacuum O i l Co . P t y L t d v .
Vacuum O i l Co. P t y L t d v .3 1 1 , V e a z i e Bank v . F e n n o V i c t o r i a v . Commonwealth V i c t o r i a v . Commonwealth
3 2 , 4-775 4 3 0 , 484 ■ ... 30 ■ ... 30 5 1 , 4 7 7 , 4 8 0 , 483 ... 38 ... 30 ... 32
Q u e e n s l a n d 309? 3 1 6 , 3 2 1 , 3 2 3 , 4 7 7 , Q u e e n s l a n d (No«2)
3 1 0 , 4 8 0 , 481
. . 307 29 , 30 ... 126, 477 c S e r v i c e
C a s e ) T T ~ 140, 143 , 478 , 4 8 1 , 483 V i c t o r i a v . Commonwealth ( S e c o n d U n i f o r m
Tax C a s e ) . . ... 41 , 1 3 0 , 13 3, 1 3 6 , 137, 1 6 5 , 4 0 7 , 414 , 423 , 425 , 4 4 1 , 446 , 477 , 484 V i c t o r i a n Chamber o f M a n u f a c t u r e s v .
""Commonwealth ( W om en s Employment B o a r d
C a s e ) ... 14-0
,
145, 149 V i c t o r i a n Chamber o f M a n u f a c t u r e s v .Commonwealth ( I n d u s t r i a l L i g h t i n g Case) 144, 145, 4 6 6 , 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 , 483 V i c t o r i a n S t e v e d o r i n g and G e n e r a l
C o n t r a c t i n g Co. P t y L t d v . D i g n a n . . . . 22
W ate r C o n s e r v a t i o n and I r r i g a t i o n Commi ssi on
(•N.S.W.) v . B ro wn in g
7
~.7
~. • . • • 244 Webh v . O u tr im ... . . . . 94 W e r r i h e e C o u n c i l v . K e r r ... 2 1 9 , 227 W e s t m i n s t e r C o r p o r a t i o n v . London andN o r t h W e s t e r n Ry Co. . . 2 1 5
,
2 1 7,
2 2 1,
2 2 9 W ic k a r d v . F i l b u r n ... .. . . . . 43 Widgee S h i r e C o u n c i l v . Bonney . . .* . . 264 Wieman v . U p d e g r a f f ... 5 7 , 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 , 484 W i l c o x M o f f l i n v . New S o u t h Wales (H i d e sand L e a t h e r C a s e ) ~
7
~. 77 2 9 2,
3 0 2,
3 0 4,
3 0 5 , 3 0 7 , 3 2 1 , 3 3 0 , 4 1 9 , 4 2 1 , 478 W i l l i a m Be an & Sons v . F l a x t o n R . D . C . . . . . 15 W i l l i a m s v . M e l b o u r n e C o r p o r a t i o n . . . . . . 264 W i l l i a m s v . M e t r o p o l i t a n an d E x p o r t(xxxiv)
W o o d r u f f v . Parham
Workmen1 s C o m p e n s a t i o n B o a r d v . C.P. R .2 9 ,
4 7 8 ,
• • •
-r
•
00 h8i+
71
Wragg v . New S o u t h Wale s 2 9 2 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 8 , 3 0 9 , 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 , 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 , 3 4 5 ) 3 4 6 , 478
CHAPTER I
Introduction
In a federal constitution, the legislative jurisdic tion is divided between the federal and the regional gov ernments, and the courts have power to determine the valid ity of enactments by reference to power conferred on the legislature concerned. If a legislature is prohibited from violating any constitutional provision, it cannot do so even
"under the guise, or the pretence, or in the form of an exercise of its own powers" . Though a legislature pur
ports to act within the limits of its powers, yet is may *in substance and reality1 2 transgress those powers, the purport ed exercise being merely a *pretence or disguise1. Will such a transgression be permitted by the courts? In other words "the legislation must not under the guise of dealing
2
with one matter in fact encroach upon the forbidden field" . All this is implied in the application of the maxim *what
1
Attorney-General for Alberta v. Attorney-General for Canada [1939J A • C • 117, at p. 130.
2
Gallagher v. Lynn [ 1937] A.C.
863
, at. p.870
.2
.
-i
c a n n o t be done d i r e c t l y c a n n o t be done i n d i r e c t l y1 . T h i s
maxim, a s s u c h , h a s p l a y e d a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t i n d e t e r m
i n i n g w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n
i s w i t h i n t h e c o m p e t e n c e o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t i n g i t
-a p r o b l e m o f c h -a r -a c t e r i s -a t i o n , w h i c h h -a s become -a c e n t r -a l 2 p r o b l e m o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n a f e d e r a t i o n .
These d a y s i n o r d e r t o k e e p p a c e w i t h t h e c h a n g i n g
t i m e s i t h a s become a l m o s t i n e v i t a b l e f o r t h e g o v e r n m e n t s
i n a f e d e r a t i o n t o u n d e r t a k e f u n c t i o n s n o t a n t i c i p a t e d a t
t h e t i m e o f maki ng t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , e . g . , t o c o n f o r m t o
t h e m o d e r n c o n c e p t o f a w e l f a r e s t a t e , o r t o p r o v i d e f o r
e c o n o m i c i n t e g r a t i o n on a n a t i o n a l l e v e l , o r t o e n f o r c e
o b l i g a t i o n s a ss u m e d on b e h a l f o f t h e s t a t e a t I n t e r n a t i o n a l
C o n v e n t i o n s . The e n l a r g e m e n t o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i v i t
i e s l e a d s t o a n i n c r e a s e i n e x p e n d i t u r e , w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y
r e s u l t s i n a n i n c r e a s e d demand o f f i n a n c e s . B u t c o n s t i t u
t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e d i v i s i o n o f l e g i s l a
t i v e p o w e r s and t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f p r o h i b i t i o n s up o n t h e
e x e r c i s e o f t h e s e p o w e r s , h a v e l e d t o t h e f r u s t r a t i o n o f
1
See e . g . , R. v . B a r g e r (1908) 6 C . L . R . 4-1; Commonwealth O i l R e f i n e r i e s Co . v . S o u t h A u s t r a l i a (1927) 38 C . L . R . 408;
Madden v . N e l s o n e t c . Ry. Co. I 1 8 8 9 J A.C. 626; I n r e I n s u r - a n c e A c t o f Canada
L
^9 3 2 J A.C. 41; B a i l e y v . D r e x e l F u r n i t u r e C o . ( 192 2) 269 U .S . 2 0 .2
C f . D i x o n J . i n M e l b o u r n e C o r p o r a t i o n v . Commonwealth
3
.many f e d e r a l sc he m e s a d o p t e d t o m e e t a c r i s i s on a n a t i o n a l i
s c a l e , and a t t i m e s t o a n u n f o r t u n a t e h e s i t a t i o n i n 2
d e a l i n g w i t h p i e s s i n g p r o b l e m s , w h e r e a s t h e S t a t e s o f t he
f e d e r a t i o n s u f f e r e d f r o m l a c k o f r e s o u r c e s t o f i n a n c e
p r o j e c t s and p ro gr am m es s p o n s o r e d by them . At t h e same
t i m e , a t t e m p t s by way o f v a r i o u s e x p e d i e n t s and d e v i c e s
s u c h a s 1l e g i s l a t i v e s c h e m e s 1 c o m p r i s i n g two o r more A c t s
t h r o u g h t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l and t h e r e g i o n a l
g o v e r n m e n t s o r o t h e r w i s e , o r g r a n t s - i n - a i d g i v e n t o t h e
r e g i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s , h a v e b e e n made, an d h a v e s u c c e e d e d t o
a c e r t a i n e x t e n t i n a c h i e v i n g r e s u l t s w h i c h c o u l d n o t hav e
b e e n a c h i e v e d d i r e c t l y . Such e x p e d i e n t s o r d e v i c e s i n so
f a r a s r e c o g n i s e d by t h e c o u r t s d i s c l o s e l i m i t a t i o n s upon
t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e maxim *what c a n n o t be done d i r e c t l y
c a n n o t be done i n d i r e c t l y 1 .
The p u r p o s e o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i s t o e xa m in e t h e
o p e r a t i o n o f t h e maxim Tw h a t c a n n o t be done d i r e c t l y c a n n o t
be done i n d i r e c t l y * and t o work o u t i t s s c o p e a s a p r i n c i p i
o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n t h e r e a l m o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law and
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w . However, i t wou ld be a s t u p e n d o u s t a s k
1
See e . g . j A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l c f Canada v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o [ i 9371 A.C. 32 6; A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f Canada v .
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o I 1 9 3 7 J A.C. 3 7 5 ; J a m e s " v . Commonwealth ( 193 6) 55 C . L . R . 1 ( P . C . ) .
2
to appreciate correctly and deal with all the complexities
and obscurities involved in its application by reference to
all the federal constitutions in existence at the present
day. Hence an attempt is made at a general study of its
operation; bringing out its importance in the United States
of America, Canada and Australia, and also in South Africa;
then follows a more detailed examination of the application
of the maxim in Australian constitutional law.
II
The origin of our maxim, particularly in the field of
constitutional law - how it came into existence and under
what circumstances it was first applied - is not clearly
traceable. But a near approach to its underlying idea is
to be seen in the following two maxims of Lord Coke:
(i) *Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur
•1
et omne per quod devenitur ad illud1 2.
When anything is prohibited, everything
relating to it is prohibited.
(ii) tQuando aliquid prohibetur ex directo
p
prohibetur et per obliquum*. When
1
2 Inst. 48.
2
5
.anything is prohibited directly, it is also prohibited indirectly.
The first maxim is discussed by Coke under the Chapter on Magna Carta: "Every oppression against Law,
by colour of any usurped authority, is a kind of destruction for, Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad i llud. And it is the most oppression that is done by colour of Justice” . This does not lead us any
where as to the manner and the circumstances of application of the m a x i m ^ .
p
This maxim is also mentioned in Bro o m 1s Legal Maxims as illustrating prohibition implied by law in transactions dealing with transfer of property. For example, an Act provided that a bank consisting of more than six partners, doing business within sixty-five miles of London, could not accept, in the course of such a business, a bill of exchange payable at less than six months from the time of acceptance; a London bank entered into an agreement with a Canadian bank that its manager, not being a partner therein, shouldaccept bills drawn on him by the Canadian bank and that the London bank should provide funds for the payment of such
1
It is one of the instances wba?e it seems Coke has used a maxim arbitrarily without any reference or context.
2
6 .
bills; although the manager was the nominal acceptor, the
transaction went through the books of the two banks as if
the London bank had been the acceptor. The acceptance of
such bills, in execution of such an agreement was held
•i
unlawful . Tindal C.J. remarked that ’’Whatever is prohib
ited by law to be done directly, cannot legally be effected
2
by an indirect and circuitous contrivance” . So a trans
action, which is a mere device to by-pass the law under
tthe colour, guise or pretence1 of doing something that is
expressly prohibited, will not be held valid.
Maxwell^ also referred to the maxim while discussing
rules of construction to prevent evasion. In the Magdalen
College Case\ a question was raised whether the King not
being specially named in 13 Eliz. e.10, was bound by it.
By that statute it was enacted that *all leases, grants,
or conveyances to be made by any master and fellows of any
college ... of any houses, lands ... to any person or
persons, bodies politic or corporate, for a longer term
than twenty-one years, shall be utterly void1 . It was
1
Booth v. Bank of England (1840) 7 Cl. & F. 509; c f . Morris v. Blackman (1864) 2 H. & C. 912, at p. 918: Minty v.
Sylvester I191 51 8*+ L.J.K.B. 1982, at p. 1986.
2
Ibid., at p . 540.
3
Interpretation of Statutes (10th ed.) , at p. 114. See
also Craies, Statute Law (5th ed.), at p. 233* 4
7
.
c o n t e n d e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s t h a t a l e a s e made t o t h e Queen
by M a g d a l e n C o l l e g e f o r a l o n g e r t e r m t h a n t w e n t y - o n e
y e a r s was n o t v o i d a s t h e Queen was n o t bound by s t a t u t e s
u n l e s s named i n t h em . B u t i t was h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t u t e
e x t e n d e d t o r e s t r a i n t h e m a s t e r and f e l l o w s o f t h e C o l l e g e
f r o m makin g g r a n t s t o t h e Que en, a l t h o u g h she was n o t
e x p r e s s l y named i n t h e A c t . L o rd Coke e x p l a i n e d :
B u t i t was n e v e r s e e n , t h a t a g e n e r a l A c t , made f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f r e l i g i o n , a d v a n c e m e n t o f l e a r n i n g , and r e l i e f o f t h e p o o r , s h o u l d be by c o n s t r u c t i o n o f l aw so e x p o u n d e d , t h a t a by -way s h o u l d be l e f t o p e n , by w h i c h t h e s a i d g r e a t and d a n g e r o u s m i s c h i e f s s h o u l d r e m a i n , and t h e n e c e s s a r y and p r o f i t a b l e remedy s u p p r e s s e d ; f o r
t h e o f f i c e o f t h e Judge i s , t o make s u c h c o n s t r u c t i o n a s w i l l s u p p r e s s t h e m i s c h i e f , and a d v a n c e t h e r e m e d y , and t o s u p p r e s s a l l e v a s i o n s f o r t h e c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e m i s c h i e f ; and s u c h by- wa y s h a l l n e v e r be l e f t o p e n by c o n s t r u c t i o n , a l t h o u g h i t be f o r t h e k i n g * s b e n e f i t . ^
I n P h i l p o t t v . S t . G e o r g e r s H o s p i t a l ^ , t h o u g h t h e b e q u e s t
i n q u e s t i o n was h e l d v a l i d w i t h i n t h e m ea ni ng o f t h e
S t a t u t e s o f M o r t m a i n , Lo rd C r a n w o r t h e x p l a i n e d t h a t
1
I b i d . , a t p . 71b . 2
(1 8 5 7 )
8
H . L . C . 338« I n t h i s c a s e t h e q u e s t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w i l l o f L o r d Beauchamp, w h i c h d e p e n d e d on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t o be p u t u p o n t h e A c t o ft h e 9 t h Geo. I I , c .
3 6
; t h a t A c t p r e v e n t e d t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f l a n d s f o r c h a r i t a b l e p u r p o s e s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e8
’’whenever you can find that anything done that is substan
tially that which is prohibited, I think it is perfectly
open to the Court to say that that is void, not because it
comes within the spirit of the statute, or tends to effect
the object which the statute is meant to prohibit, but
because by reason of the true construction it is the thing,
or one of the things, actually prohibited.” It is summed
up in the remark of Wllmot C.J., that ’’Whenever Courts of
law see such attempts made to conceal such wicked deeds,
they will brush away the cobweb varnish, and shew the
2
transactions in their true light.”
This maxim has also been used in the interpretation
of prohibitions or restrictions on legislative powers in
the field of public law. For example, in Australia in 3
Deakin v. Webb , the question posed was whether an author
ity having no power to levy tax on the income of certain
people, has power to make dimunition of that income.
Griffith C.J. thought that both were in substance the same
and said:
If it has no power, it cannot affect the same
purpose by the use of another form of words. The
1
Ibid., at p. 3*+9. Also refer to Jefferies v. Alexander -(i860) 31 L.J. Ch.9j at p. 14 per Blackburn J.
^Collins v. Blantern (1767) 2 Wilson K.B. 341 , at p. 3^9.
3
9
.
corollary of the maxim quando lex aliguid alicui concedit, concedit et id sine.quo res ipsa esse non potest, on which this Court mainly based its judgment in D1Emden v. Pedder , is quando aliquid prohibetur. prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. When the law prohibits the doing of anything, the prohibition cannot be evaded by doing something which is substantially the same, merely by using a different form of words to describe it2 34.
Similarly in Bank of New South Wales v. Commonwea1thß, the
question related to the validity of the Banking Act, 19*+7,
one of whose objects was 1 the taking over by the Common
wealth Bank of the banking business of private banks and
the acquisition on just terms of property used in that
business*• Dixon J. while discussing acquisition of the
interest of the shareholders in such banks, observed: ”1
have reached the conclusion that tUs is but a circuitous
device to acquire indirectly the substance of a proprietary
interest without at once providing the just terms guaran
teed by s.51(xxxi) of the Constitution"; and further
explained: "When a Constitution undertakes to forbid or
restrain some legislative course, there can be no prohibi
tion to which it is more proper to apply the principle
embodied in the maxim quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur
et omne per quod devenitur ad illud.l+n
1
(1904) 1 C.L.R. 91.
2
(1904) 1 C.L.R. 585, at pp. 612, 613.
3(1948) 76 C.L.R. 1 (H.C.).
4