Corporate taxpayers sought restitution of liquor user charges paid under legislation later held ultra vires as an unconstitutional indirect tax.
The Court held that recovery of ultra vires taxes is grounded in constitutional principles, not unjust enrichment, because the rule against taxation without legislative authority is a fundamental incident of democracy and the rule of law.
The Court rejected both any general Crown immunity from restitutionary claims and the passing-on defence in this context, and discarded protest and compulsion as a prerequisite for recovery against public authorities.
Recovery was limited by the six-year limitation period, compound interest was denied, and the appellants obtained restitution of charges paid on or after the limitation date with costs.
