Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T10:40:49.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Australian Inter-State Common Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Ian Renard
Ian Renard*
Affiliation:
Law School, University of Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No doubt when a jurisdiction is conferred like that given by sec. 75(iii) and (iv) the source whence the substantive law is to be derived for determining the duties of the governments presents difficulties …

By section 75(iii) and (iv) of the Commonwealth Constitution, the High Court is granted original jurisdiction to hear “matters” between the various Australian governments. As yet, most inter-governmental cases heard by the High Court have been disposed of by interpretation and application of the Constitution, but it is clear that the High Court must have recourse to legal sources outside the Constitution. A study of the cases so far heard by the High Court, the types of disputes that might arise, application of the common law in other areas of law and experience in other federations reveals that the common law is applicable to Australian inter-governmental cases. Not only this, but there exists a body of “inter-state common law” specifically referable to intergovernmental disputes. Strands of this inter-state common law are to be found in the law covering rights of governments and their Attorneys General to sue other governments on behalf of their residents, intergovernmental agreements, nuisance and inter-State water disputes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 87 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Werrin v. Commonwealth (1938) S9 C.L.R. 150, 167 per Dixon J.

2 63 & 64 Vict., c. 12

3 Professor Cowen has stated that s. 76 (iv) is redundant; Cowen, Z., Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (1959) 23Google Scholar.

4 (1923) 32 C.L.R. 200.

5 Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ.

6 Werrin v. Commonwealth (1938) 59 C.L.R. 150, 161 per Rich J., 168 per Dixon J.; Parker v. Commonwealth (1965) 112 C.L.R. 295; Sawer, G., “Judicial Power under the Constitution” in Else-Mitchell, R. (ed.), Essays on the Australian Constitution (2 ed., 1961)Google Scholar; but note that a view similar tothat of the majority as regards s. 75 (v) has been consistently maintained by the High Court: Television Corporation Ltd. v. Commonwealth (1963) 109 C.L.R. 59, 74.

7 Werrin v. Commonwealth (1938) 59 C.L.R. 150; Commonwealth v. Anderson (1960) 105 C.L.R. 303.

8 Collins v. Charles Marshall Pty. Ltd. (1955) 92 C.L.R. 529.

9 In re Judiciary Act (1903-1920) and Navigation Act (1912-1920) (1921) 29 C.L.R.257.

10 Constitution s. 71.

11 United States Constitution Art. III, s. 2.1; see the distinction between U.S. and Australian Constitutions discussed by O'Connor J. in South Australia v. Victoria (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667, 70.

12 Id., 667, 675, 715; Commonwealth v. New South Wales (1923) 32 C.L.R. 200,207.

13 South Australia v. Victoria (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667, 715 per Isaacs J.

14 Harrison Moore, W., “The Federations and Suits between Governments” (1935) 17 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 163Google Scholar, 172.

15 Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Brewery Employees Union (Union Label Case) (1908) 6 C.L.R. 469.

16 Judiciary Act 1903-1969, s. 64.

17 John Cooke & Co. v. Commonwealth (1922) 31 C.L.R. 394 (H.Ct) (1924) 34 C.L.R. 269 (P.C.).

18 (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667 (H.Ct); (1914) 18 C.L.R. 115 (P.C.).

19 22 Geo. 5, c. 4.

20 28 & 29 Vict., c. 63.

21 South Australia v. Victoria (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667; Tasmania v. Victoria (1935) 52 C.L.R. 157.

22 Commonwealth v. New South Wales (1906) 3 C.L.R. 807, (1918) 25 C.L.R. 325, (1923) 32 C.L.R. 200, (1923) 33 C.L.R. 1; New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1908) 6 C.L.R. 214, (1908) 7 C.L.R. 179, (1915) 20 C.L.R. 54, (1926) 38 C.L.R. 74, (1929) 42 C.L.R. 69, (1932) 46 C.L.R. 155, 235, 246; Victoria v. Commonwealth (1926) 38 C.L.R. 399, (1937) 58 C.L.R. 618, (1957) 99 C.L.R. 575; South Australia v. Commonwealth (1926) 38 C.L.R. 408, (1942) 65 C.L.R. 373, (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130; Commonwealth v. Queensland (1920) 29 C.L.R. 1; Tasmania v. Commonwealth (1904) 1 C.L.R. 3290.

23 New South Wales v. Commonwealth (Garden Island Case) (1926) 38 C.L.R. 74; South Australia v. Commonwealth (Rail Standardisation Agreement Case) (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130.

24 Commonwealth Constitution (except for South Australia Vo Victoria (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667, (1914) 18 C.L.R. 115).

25 R. v. Bernasconi (1915) 19 C.L.R. 62.

26 Lamshed v. Lake (1958) 99 C.L.R. 132, 141, per Dixon Col.; Spratt v. Hermes (1965) 114 C.L.R. 226.

27 (1967) 116 C.L,.R. 353.

28 Parker v. Commonwealth (1965) 112 C.L.R. 295.

29 Commissioner of Stamp Duties v. Owens (1953) 88 C.L.R. 16-8.

30 Phillips, P. D., “Choice of Law in Federal Jurisdictions”, (1961) 3 M.U.L.R. 170Google Scholar, 348; Harding, R. W., “Common Law, Federal and Constitutional Aspects of Choice of Law in Tort” (1965) 7 West. Aust. L. Rev. 196Google Scholar.

31 Musgrave v. Commonwealth (1936) 57 C.L.R. 514, 532 per Latham C.J. (and probably Evatt and McTiernan JJ.); Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Brown (1958) 100 C.L.R. 32, 39 per Dixon C.J.; Pedersen v. Young (1964) 110 C.L.R. 162; Parker v. Commonwealth (1965) 112 C.L.R. 295, 306 per Windeyer J.; contra R. v. Oregan; Ex parte Oregan (1957) 97 C.L.R. 323; P. D. Phillips, op. cit.

32 Jones v. Jones (1928) 40 C.L.R.. 315 per Higgins J.; Harris v. Harris [1947]V.L.R. 44; Sykes, E. I., “Full Faith and Credit—Further Reflections” (1954) 6 Res Judicatae 353Google Scholar; Cowen, Z., “Full Faith and Credit—aThe Australian Experience” in Else-Mitchell, R. (ed.), Essays on the Ausltralian Constitution (2 ed., 1961)Google Scholar 326; P. D. Phillips, op. cit.; R. W. Harding, op. cit.

33 (1965) 114 C.L.R. 20.

34 (1968) 43 A.L,.J.R. 42.

35 (1965) 114 C.L.R. 20, 25 per Barwick C.J. Similar sentiments were expressed per Kitto J. at 31, per Taylor J. at 37, per Menzies J. at 39 and per Windeyer J. at 45.

36 (1968) 43 A.L.J.R. 42, 44 per curiam.

37 Notably the views of Professor Cowen, op. cit.

38 (1933) 48 C.L.R. 565.

39 Macfarlan J.

40 [1939] S.A.S.R. 441.

41 R. v. Registrar of Titles (1915) 20 C.L.R. 379; New South Wales v. Bardolph [1935] A.L.R. 22 per Evatt J.

42 Uther v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1947) 74 C.L.R. 508, 528. His Honour was referring to the Companies Act (N.S.W.) 1936.

43 (1953) 89 C.L.R. 229.

44 Id., 260.

45 (1923) 32 C.L.R. 200.

46 (1967) 116 C.L.R. 353.

47 Discussed further inifra, 108-109.

48 Missouri v. Illinois (1901) 180 U.S. 208, 45 L.Ed. 497, (1906) 200 U.S. 496,50 L.Ed. 572; New York v. New Jersey (1921) 256 U.S. 296, 65 L.Ed. 937.

49 Pennsylvania v. West Virginia (1922) 262 U.S. 553, 67 L.Ed. 1117.

50 North Dakota v. Minnesota (1923) 263 U.S. 365, 382, 68 L.Ed. 342.

51 Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S.A. v. Canada) (1938,..40) 9 Ann. Dig. 315.

52 In a long series of decisions, commencing with Kansas v. Colorado (1902) 185 U.S. 125, 46 L.Ed. 838, (1907) 206 U.S. 46, 51 L.Ed.956; the most recent decision is Arizona v. California (1963) 373 U.S. 546, 70 L.Ed. 2nd 542. Other cases are reprinted in T. R. Witmer, Documents on the Use and Control of the Waters of Interstate and International Streams (1956).

53 Aargau v. Zurich (1878) Rec. Off. des Arrets du Tribunal Federal 4, 34-7; partly translated in English in D. Schindler (1921) 15 Am.J.Int.L., 149; F.J. Berber, Rivers in International Law (1959) 177-78.

54 Wurttemberg and Prussia v. Baden (1927-28) 4 Ann. Dig. 12,8.

55 Sind v. Punjab (1942) Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission. This was the decision of an arbitral tribunal by which both provinces agreed to be bound.

56 Zarumilla River Arbitral Award (Peru v. Ecuador) (1945) “Infofine del Ministro de Las Relaciones Exteriores A La Nacion”, (Quito, 1945); partly translated in English in Griffin, W. L., “The Use of Waters of International Drainage Basins under Customary International Law” (1959) 53 Am.J.Int.L. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 80; Lake Lanoux Arbitration (Spain v. France) (1957) 24 International Law Reports 101.

57 The four Governments that are parties to the River Murray Agreement agreed in February 1970 that the next dam to be constructed in the Murray basin should be at Dartmouth in Victoria rather than at Chowilla in South Australia as previously planned. The South Australian Government, however, was laterdefeated on this issue both on the floor of the House and at the subsequent polls on 30 May, 1970. If the other parties to the River Murray Agreement go ahead with construction of the Dartmouth Dam without South Australia's consent, as Sir Henry Bolte has threatened (Melbourne Herald 27/8/1969), South Australia might sue them in the High Court.

58 Missouri v. Illinois (1901) 180 U.S. 208, 241, 45 L.Ed. 497; Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. (1945) 324 U.S. 439, 89 L.Ed. 1051; Solothurn v. Aargau (1900) 26 Rec. Off. des Arrets du Tribunal Federal 1, 444—and it seems the same would apply in Australia: Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Brewery Employees Union (1908) 6 C.L.R. 469, 552-53 per O'Connor J.

59 (1930) 282 U.S. 660; 75 L,.Ed. 602.

60 (1907) 206 U.S. 46, 51 L,.Ed. 956.

61 (1930) 282 U.S. 660, 670, 75 L.Ed. 602, 607.

62 (1938) 304 U.S. 92, 82 L.Ed. 1202.

63 Id., 110 per Brandeis J., 82 L.Ed. 1212.

64 (1878) Rec. Off. des Arrets du Tribunal Federal 4, 34.

65 Id., translation from F. J. Berber, op. cit., 177-78.

66 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Official Liquidator of E. O. Farley Ltd (1940) 63 C.L.R. 278.

67 Id., 312-13.

68 Harrison Moore, W., “The Federations and Suits between Governments” (1935) 17 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 163Google Scholar, 200 (third series).

69 (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667.

70 Id., 721.

71 E.g. Parker v. Commonwealth (1965) 112 C.L.R. 295; Suehle v. Commonwealth (1967) 116 C.L.R. 353.

72 E.g. Welden v. Smith (1924) 34 C.L.R. 29 (P.C.).

73 South Australia v. Commonwealth (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130; Dominion of Canada v. Province of Ontario [1910] A.C. 637, 646.

74 SirDixon, Owen, “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation” (1957) 31 A.L.J. 240Google Scholar; Kerr, D., The Law of the Australian Constitution (1925), 27–30Google Scholar.

75 Swift v. Tyson (1842) 16 Peters 1, 10 L.Ed. 865; overruled by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.

76 See Cowen, Z., “Diversity Jurisdiction: The Australian Experience” (1955) 7 Res Judicatae 1Google Scholar, 29-30; Derham, D., discussion (1957) 31 A.L.J. 247Google Scholar.

77 The King v. Kidman (1915) 20 C.L.R. 425, 436-37 per Griffith C.J.

78 Commonwealth v. Queensland (1920) 29 C.L.R. 1 per Higgins J.

79 Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Brewery Employees Union (1908)6 C.L.R. 469, 552.

80 Tasmania v. Victoria (1935) 52 C.L.R. 157.

81 E.g. the “pith and substance test”; The King v. Barger (1908) 6 C.L.R. 41, affirmed by the Privy Council in W. R. Moran Pty Ltd v. Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (N.S.W.) (1940) 63 C.L.R. 338 341.

82 Attorney-General for Jersey v. Solicitor-General for Jersey [1893] A.C. 326.

83 Commonwealth v. New South Wales (1923) 33 C.L.R. 1; Attorney-General for British Columbia v. Attorney-General for Canada (1889) 14 App.Cas. 295.

84 Attorney-General for British Columbia v. Attorney-General for Canada [1914] A.C. 152; Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Quebec [1921] 1A.C. 413.

85 Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Alberta [1928] A.C.475.

86 Commonwealth v. Cigamatic Pty Ltd (1962) 108 C.L.R. 372; Uther v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1947) 74 C.L.R. 508; Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Quebec [1932] A.C. 514.

87 Knox, Isaacs, Rich, Starke, Higgins, Williams and Herron JJ. have stated that the Crown is one and indivisible, merely acting through different agencies in the various Australian States, whereas Griffith, Latham, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. see the Crown as being several juristic persons: Cuppaidge, W. E., “The Divisibility of The Crown” (1954) 27 A.L.J. 594Google Scholar.

88 30 & 31 Viet., c. 3.

89 See, for example, the passage from the judgment of Dixon, J. in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Official Liquidator of E. O. Farley Ltd (1940) 63 C.L.R. 278Google Scholar, 312-13 quoted supra.

90 South Australia v. Victoria (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667, (1914) 18 C.L.R. 115.

91 Pennsylvania and Maryland 1683-1709, Connecticut and Rhode Island 1725-26, Virginia and North Carolina 1726-27, Rhode Island and Massachusetts 1734-46, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island (Second Case) 1734-69, New Hampshire and New York 1764, New York and Quebec, 1768; see (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667, 702.

92 New Jersey v. Delaware (1934) 291 U.S. 361, 78 L.Ed. 847; Michigan v. Wisconsin (1925) 270 U.S. 295, 70 L.Ed. 595; Oklahoma v. Texas (1922) 258 U.S. 574, 66 L.Ed. 771; Nebraska v. Iowa (1892) 143 U.S. 359, 36 L.Ed. 186 and other cases noted in (1929) 74 L.Ed. 786.

93 Massachusetts and Connecticut 1754.

94 Cape Breton Case (1846) 5 Moo. P.C.C. 259, Manitoba and Ontario Boundary Case 1886, PentalIsland Case 1872.

95 (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667.

96 Id., 720-21, citing In re Lord Bishop of Natal (1864) 3 Moo. P.C.C. NS, 115, 148; Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750) 1 Yes. 444. His argument is supported by the judgment of the Privy Council in Re the Labrador Boundary (1927) 43 T.L.R. 28,9 which is clearly an exercise of judicial power.

97 (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667, 705 per Griffith C.J., Barton J. concurring, 714 per O'Connor J. A similar dispatch had in fact been.sent by the British Secretary of State some twenty years earlier regarding the Pental Island dispute between New South Wales and Victoria.

98 (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667.

99 Id., 705 per Griffith C.J.

100 Id., 733.

101 Judiciary Act, s. 64.

102 (1911) 12 C.L..R. 667, 744.

103 In Re the Labrador Boundary (1927) 43 T.L.R. 289, the Privy Council used principles of common law (and analogies from international law) in interpreting Imperial legislation.

104 His conclusion was based on the theory that one State could not represent the Crown in a suit against another State—and this would not seem to be a correct statement of the law, at least as it stands at the present time: W. E. Cuppaidge, op. cit.

105 Judiciary Act, s. 56, Crown Proceedings Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 23 (1) (a) and equivalent Acts of the other States (individuals); Judiciary Act, s. 57 (governments).

106 Welden v. Smith (1924) 34 C.L.R. 29.

107 South Australia v. Commonwealth (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130.

108 Ibid.; John Cooke & Co. v. Commonwealth (1922) 31 C.L.R. 394.

109 Ibid.

110 E.g. unlikely to be a contract if made as a wartime, emergency measure.

111 South Australia v. Commonwealth (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130.

112 (1949) 80 C.L.R. 382.

113 Id., 424 per Williams J.

114 (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130.

115 Id., 141 per Dixon C.J., Kitto J. concurring, 150 per Menzies J.

116 Id., 149 per McTiernan J., 154 per Windeyer J.; intergovernmental agreements may be enforced as contracts in the United States: Arkansas v. Texas( 1953) 346 U.S. 368, 98 L.Ed. 80; Kentucky v. Indiana (1929) 281 U.S. 163, 74 L.Ed.784.

117 Id., per McTiernan and Windeyer Jl.

118 Id., per Owen and Taylor JJ.

119 John Cooke & Co. v. Commonwealth (1922) 31 C.L.R. 394, 402.

120 ld.

121 Id., 418.

122 (1949) 80 C.L.R. 382.

123 Id., 409.

124 (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130.

125 Ibid.

126 1d., 140.

127 (1949) 80 C.L.R. 382.

128 South Australia v. Commonwealth (1962) 108 C.L.R. 130, 147 per Dixon C.J.

129 Rederiaktiebolaget Amphitrite v. The King [1921] 3 K.B. 500.

130 New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1926) 38 C.L.R. 74.

131 Id., 108.

132 (1929) 42 C.L.R. 69, 77.

133 Commonwealth v. Colonial Combing, Spinning & Weaving Co. (1922) 31 C.L.R.421.

134 Clayton v. Heffron (1960) 105 C.L.R. 214

135 Commonwealth v. Colonial Combing, Spinning & Weaving Co. (1922) 31 C.L.R. 421 per Isaacs and Starke JJ.; South Australia v. Commonwealth (1962) 108, C.L.R. 130, 140 per Dixon C.J.

136 Dixon. C.J., id.

137 (1923) 32 C.L.R. 200.

138 Judiciary Act 1903-1969, s. 56 (actions by individuals), s. 57 (actions by governments), Crown Proceedings Act 1958 (Vic.), s. 23 (1) (b) and equivalent statutes of the other State.

139 South Australia v. Victoria (1911) 12 C.L,.R. 667.

140 New York v. New Jersey (1921) 256 U.S. 296, 309, 65 L.Ed. 937, 943; Missouri v. Illinois (1906) 200 U.S. 496, 521, 50 L.Ed. 57.2, 579.

141 Embrey v. Owen (1851) 6 Exch. 353, 155 E.R. 579; H. Jones & Co. v. Kingborough Corporation (1950) 82 C.L.R. 282.

142 In Australia these rules have proved quite inadequate. In Victoria, Queensland, Northern Territory and possibly in New South Wales, the common law rules have been completely displac.ed by a licensing system (e.g. Water Act 1958 (Viet)) while in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, common law rules only apply in certain areas. See Clark, S. D. and Renard, I. A., “The Riparian Doctrine and Australian Legislation” (1970) 7 M.U.L.R. 475Google Scholar.

143 Constitution, s. 98. The defence power was invoked to justify the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949 (Cth) but its validity seems very doubtful. Mere claims that the Act is designed to increase the industrial potential of the Commonwealth and thus increase the ability of the country to defend itself are not enough to bring the Act within the defence power (Commonwealth v. Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board (1926) 39 C.L.R. 1).

144 See Pedersen v. Young (1964) 110 C.L.R. 162, 170 per Windeyer J.

145 SirDixon, Owen, Address to American Bar Association (1943) 17 A.L.J. 138Google Scholar; id., “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation” (1957) 31 A.L.J. 240.

146 South Australia v. Victoria (1911) 12 C.L.R. 667, 676; cited by Knox, C.J. in Commonwealth v. New South Wales (1923) 32 C.L.R. 200Google Scholar, 205.

147 Dicey, A. V., “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution” (9 ed. 1948) 175Google Scholar.

148 Essendon Corporation v. Criterion Theatres (1947) 74 C.L.R. 1, 14 per Latham C.J., 22 per Dixon J.

149 “The community embracing the German States is closer than the international community of nations, and the duty of reciprocal consideration of interests is, therefore, more intensive than in the relations of other States”: Wurttemberg and Prussia v. Baden (1927-28) 4 Ann. Dig. 128, 130-31; Solothurn v. Aargau (1900) 26 Rec. Off. des Arrets du Tribunal Federal 1, 444; Kansas v. Colorado (1907) 206 U.S. 46, 51 L.Ed. 956.

150 (1922) 31 C.L.R. 421, 438-39.

151 Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Brewery Employees Union (1908) 6 C.L.R. 469.

152 Tasmania v. Victoria (1935) 52 C.L.R. 157.

153 (1960) 105 C.L.R. 303.

154 Id., 318.

155 “The general principles of law recognised by civilized nations” in fact form one of the sources of international law: Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 38 (1) (c).