R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell

Infobox Court Case
name=R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell
court=High Court of Australia


date_decided=22 April 1920
full_name=R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell
citations= [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/28clr23.html (1920) 28 CLR 23]
judges= Knox CJ, Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke JJ
prior_actions=none
subsequent_actions=none
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 & Starke JJ; Higgins J dissenting)

"R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell" (1920) 28 CLR 23 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.

Background

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.

See also

* Section 109 of the Australian Constitution
* Australian constitutional law

References

* Winterton, G. et al. "Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials", 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.

External links

* [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/28clr23.html Full text of the decision]