![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg/640px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia
Australian constitutional law case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia,[1] is a High Court of Australia case that deals with whether a particular Act of South Australia contravenes Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, which is about the freedom of interstate trade.
![]() | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (February 2018) |
Quick Facts Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia, Court ...
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | High Court of Australia |
Decided | 7 February 1990 |
Citations | [1990] HCA 1, (1990) 169 CLR 436 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ |
Case opinions | |
(7:0) If a law is protectionist in nature, but has a non-protectionist purpose, the means chosen to attain the non-protectionist purpose must be necessary, or appropriate and adapted, and in this case, the higher deposits on non-refillable beer bottles was not found to be a proportionate means. |
Close