翻訳と辞書 ・ Batho Pele
・ Bathoceleus hyphalus
・ Bathochromic shift
・ Bathocyroe
・ Bathocyroe fosteri
・ Batholith
・ Bathometer
・ Bathonea
・ Bathonian
・ Bathonian Series
・ Bathopele mine
・ Bathophilus
・ Bathophobia
・ Bath Tramways Company
・ Bath treatment (fishkeeping)
・ Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd
・ Bath VA Medical Center
・ Bath's goby
・ Bath, California
・ Bath, Illinois
・ Bath, Indiana
・ Bath, Jamaica
・ Bath, Kentucky
・ Bath, Maine
・ Bath, Maine anti-Catholic riot of 1854
・ Bath, Michigan
・ Bath, Netherlands
・ Bath, New Brunswick
・ Bath, New Hampshire
・ Bath, New York
|
|
| Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd
''Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd'' (1988) 165 CLR 411 is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the application of the freedom of interstate trade, as specified in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia. This case followed the unanimous decision of Cole v Whitfield regarding the interpretation of section 92 as about free trade as opposed to individual rights.
== Background ==
The ''Business Franchise (Tobacco) Act'' 1974 (Vic) imposed a licensing scheme for the sale of tobacco. For retailers, the fee was composed of a flat fee and an amount equal to 25% of the value of the tobacco sold in the previous twelve months. The Act also made for the provision of wholesalers, and tobacco bought by retailers from Victorian wholesalers would not be taken into account for the assessment of the retailer fee. This was ostensibly to avoid double-taxing the tobacco sold.
The defendant, Alston Holdings Pty Ltd, was a tobacco retailer in Victoria, who imported tobacco from Queensland for sale in Victoria, but did so without a licence. The defendant sought to challenge the Act on section 92 grounds.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|