This case followed the unanimous decision of Cole v Whitfield,[2] regarding the interpretation of section 92 as about free trade as opposed to individual rights.

The unanimous decision in Cole v Whitfield,[2] soothed the confused waters with regards to section 92 of the Constitution.

The judges emphasised that a tax upon retailers, in order to be consistent with section 92, must apply equally to interstate and local goods sold.

The minority in this case felt that while it was discriminatory, it was not protectionist in nature and that the arguments presented above only had a "superficial plausibility".

The scheme was viewed as structured as it is for convenience of collection of the fee, as there were fewer wholesalers than retailers.