D'Emden v Pedder
| D'Emden v Pedder | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | D'Emden v Pedder |
| Decided | 26 April 1904 |
| Citation(s) | [1904] HCA 1, (1904) 1 CLR 91. |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) |
Pedder v D'Emden [1903] TASLawRp 8; (1903) 2 Tas LR 146 (Supreme Court of Tasmania appeal) |
| Subsequent action(s) | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (3:0) attempts by the states to exercise legislative or executive power, in a way that would interfere with the legislative or executive power of the federal government, are, unless expressly authorised by the Constitution, invalid (per curiam) | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ |
D'Emden v Pedder was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws.
The case was the first of several in which the High Court applied the implied intergovernmental immunities doctrine, relied on in the Supreme Court of the United States case of McCulloch v. Maryland, which held that the state and Commonwealth governments were normally immune from each other's laws, and which, along with the reserved State powers doctrine, would be a significant feature of Australian constitutional law until both doctrines were rejected in the landmark Engineers' case in 1920.
The case is also significant as the first case decided by the High Court involving the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia.
As with the allocation of powers to the United States Congress under the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Australia grants a number of specified powers to the Parliament of Australia, while leaving unassigned powers to the state parliaments. Most of the powers granted to the federal parliament can also be exercised by the state parliaments, though because of section 109 of the Australian Constitution federal laws will prevail in case of inconsistency. This arrangement resulted in a constitutional dispute as to whether the federal government could be subject to state laws, and vice versa.
...
Wikipedia