|
''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. ==Background to the case== 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.〔 The factual circumstances giving rise to this case began on 31 March 1903 when Henry D'Emden, who was employed by the federal government as the Deputy Postmaster-General for Tasmania, gave a receipt for his salary to a federal official without paying the Tasmanian stamp duty on it.〔 D'Emden was convicted in a Hobart court, and was ordered to pay a one shilling fine and seven shillings and sixpence in costs; when he refused to pay, he was imprisoned in the Hobart jail for seven days' hard labour.〔, per Griffith CJ〕 While agreeing that in fact he had not paid the stamp duty, D'Emden argued that at law he was not obliged to pay the state tax, and made the same basic argument in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.〔 That appeal was rejected, and D'Emden appealed to the High Court. 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「D'Emden v Pedder」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|