Laws1116 - Final Exam Cases - Freedom Of Interstate Trade

Front 1

Fox v Robbins

Back 1

The High Court ruled that the fees were unconstitutional.

Front 2

James v South Australia

Back 2

The High Court ruled that, while the law did not discriminate between internal and external producers, the order was unconstitutional.

Front 3

Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales (Banking Case)

Back 3

The High Court ruled that, while the law was not discriminatory, it was not reasonably justified and unconstitutional.

Front 4

Cole v Whitfield

Back 4

The High Court ruled that the constitution only bans discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind. The regulations on goods were acceptable.

Front 5

Bath v Alston

Back 5

The High Court ruled that the fees were protectionist and unconstitutional.

Front 6

Castlemaine Tooheys v South Australia

Back 6

The High Court ruled that the requirements severely limited foreign retailers and constituted protectionism, despite not being the intent.

Front 7

Betfair v Western Australia

Back 7

The High Court ruled that the laws had a discriminatory impact as the service in the state was otherwise dominated by one organization.

Front 8

Barley Board Case

Back 8

The High Court ruled that the restrictions were not discriminatory.

Front 9

Nationwide News v Wills

Back 9

The High Court ruled that the phrase not only granted physical freedom, but also modern forms of inter-state communication (eg: phone, email, etc.).