R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell[1] is a High Court of Australia case about inconsistency between Commonwealth and State legislation, which is dealt with by s 109 of the Australian Constitution. It is the leading example of what is known as the impossibility of simultaneous obedience test.
(6:1) The Commonwealth and Queensland laws were inconsistent because of the impossibility of simultaneous obedience (per Knox CJ, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich & Starke JJ; Higgins J dissenting)
Section 166 of the Liquor Act 1912 (Qld) stated that a State referendum on liquor trading hours was to be held on the same day as the Senate elections. However, section 14 of the Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act 1917 (Cth) forbid electors from voting at a State referendum or vote on the same day as the Senate elections, which were held on 5 May 1917.
The decision
It was held that there was an inconsistency between the Queensland and Commonwealth Acts, and thus the State law, to the extent of the inconsistency, is invalid. It is an example of impossibility of simultaneous obedience because had State officials obeyed the State law by conducting the State referendum on 5 May 1917, they would have contravened the Commonwealth law forbidding such an occurrence.
^R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell [1920] HCA 24, (1920) 28 CLR 23 (22 April 1920), High Court.
Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.
March 26, 2023
licensing, court, brisbane, parte, daniell, this, article, includes, list, general, references, lacks, sufficient, corresponding, inline, citations, please, help, improve, this, article, introducing, more, precise, citations, february, 2018, learn, when, remov. This article includes a list of general references but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations February 2018 Learn how and when to remove this template message R v Licensing Court of Brisbane Ex parte Daniell 1 is a High Court of Australia case about inconsistency between Commonwealth and State legislation which is dealt with by s 109 of the Australian Constitution It is the leading example of what is known as the impossibility of simultaneous obedience test R v Licensing Court of Brisbane Ex parte DaniellCourtHigh Court of AustraliaDecided22 April 1920Citation s 1920 HCA 24 1920 28 CLR 23Case opinions 6 1 The Commonwealth and Queensland laws were inconsistent because of the impossibility of simultaneous obedience per Knox CJ Isaacs Gavan Duffy Powers Rich amp Starke JJ Higgins J dissenting Court membershipJudge s sittingKnox CJ Isaacs Higgins Gavan Duffy Powers Rich and Starke JJ Contents 1 Background 2 The decision 3 See also 4 ReferencesBackground EditSection 166 of the Liquor Act 1912 Qld stated that a State referendum on liquor trading hours was to be held on the same day as the Senate elections However section 14 of the Commonwealth Electoral Wartime Act 1917 Cth forbid electors from voting at a State referendum or vote on the same day as the Senate elections which were held on 5 May 1917 The decision EditIt was held that there was an inconsistency between the Queensland and Commonwealth Acts and thus the State law to the extent of the inconsistency is invalid It is an example of impossibility of simultaneous obedience because had State officials obeyed the State law by conducting the State referendum on 5 May 1917 they would have contravened the Commonwealth law forbidding such an occurrence See also EditSection 109 of the Australian Constitution Australian constitutional lawReferences Edit R v Licensing Court of Brisbane Ex parte Daniell 1920 HCA 24 1920 28 CLR 23 22 April 1920 High Court Winterton G et al Australian federal constitutional law commentary and materials 1999 LBC Information Services Sydney Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title R v Licensing Court of Brisbane Ex parte Daniell amp oldid 1100263852, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
