Colvin v Bradley Bros (1943) 68 CLR 151 - Direct Inconsistency Test

Brief Description of the Case: Colvin v Bradley Bros (1943) 68 CLR 151 is an important case in Australian law that dealt with the issue of determining the applicable law when there is a conflict between a federal law and a state law. The case involved a dispute over the sale of goods between a seller, Colvin, and a buyer, Bradley Bros, in the state of Queensland.

Explanation of the Direct Inconsistency Test: The Direct Inconsistency Test is a legal principle used to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws in Australia. It determines which law should prevail when there is a direct inconsistency between a federal law and a state law. According to this test, if there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict between the two laws, the federal law will override the state law.

In addition to the Direct Inconsistency Test, Colvin v Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd highlighted other aspects of inconsistency between laws and the need for a more nuanced analysis in individual cases. The case recognized that inconsistencies may arise not only when one law imposes a duty that the other prohibits but also when one law confers a right that the other takes away.

The court acknowledged that statutes can go beyond imposing duties and may also confer rights. In situations where one statute takes away a right conferred by another statute, even if that right could be waived or abandoned without disobeying the law, an inconsistency exists. This form of inconsistency is based on conflicting rights and duties rather than a direct conflict of provisions.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s109.html