Smith v Capewell
142 CLR 50926 ALR 507
(Judgment by: Aickin J)
Between: Smith
And: Capewell
Judges:
Barwick CJ
Gibbs J
Stephen J
Mason J
Murphy J
Aickin J
Subject References:
Constitutional Law (Cth)
Judgment date: 4 October 1979
Melbourne
Judgment by:
Aickin J
I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by the Chief Justice with which I am in full agreement.
I agree that the joint judgment of Knox C.J., Isaacs and Starke JJ. in W. & A. McArthur Ltd. v. Queensland (1920) 28 CLR 530 appears sometimes to be regarded (wrongly in my opinion) as dealing exhaustively with the content of interstate trade for the purposes of s. 92. That judgment examined the four modes of trading engaged in by the plaintiff in that case as set out at p. 540. The case decided, rightly in my respectful opinion, that of those modes only the fourth constituted interstate trade. There is however nothing in that judgment to suggest that the fourth mode constitutes an exclusive statement of what comprises interstate trade nor an exclusive statement of the manner in which interstate trade in goods may occur. That case did not involve any question of the freedom of physical movement of goods or vehicles nor did it deal with the situation of transport of goods across a State border for the purpose of sale in the State of destination by the owner who had arranged such transport. It appears to me that the joint judgment contains nothing which is inconsistent with Hughes & Vale Pty. Ltd. v. New South Wales (1954) 93 CLR 1 ; [1955] AC 241 nor with the decision in North Eastern Dairy Co. Ltd. v. Dairy Industry Authority of NSW (1975) 134 CLR 559