Country
Australia
Sources
InforMEA
Tagging
Taxation, Inspections, Prevention, Permits, Standing, Licences, Liability, Evidence
Abstract

In this case, the plaintiff is a beer brewer challenging the Act increasing the amount of the mandatory deposit per bottle sold as required by the South Australian Beverage Container Act 1975.

The plaintiff challenged the decision in front of the High Court of Australia on the basis that it is not located in South Australia and that it used non refillable bottles, as opposed to other brewery located in South Australia. The plaintiff justified its claim on the basis that it created a competitive disadvantage for him and it was beneficiating its South Australian competitors. The judges had to consider whether or not the South Australian Beverage Container Act 1975, which was originally taken to protect the environment, could have for consequence to create a disadvantage for beer brewers from other Australian states.

The High Court Considered that the 1986 legislation which increases the amount of the mandatory deposit per bottle sold was excessive in the sense that it exceeded the amount necessary to conservation the environment and, as result, could be considered to be some form of hidden discrimination in order to benefit the local brewers.