Andrews v Diprose - [1937] HCA 70

ANDREWS AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS, DIPROSE

RESPONDENT. APPLICANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Dairy Produce-Registration of premises-Conditions of registration-Matters to be

considered Best interests of the industry "___" Situation and environment" of premises-Dairy Produce Act 1932-1935 (Tas.) (23 Geo. v. No. 37-26 Geo. V. No. 52), sec. 6 (3).

Sec. 6 (3) of the Dairy Produce Act 1932-1935 (Tas.) provides that a certificate of registration for dairy-produce premises shall not be issued unless the Director of Agriculture is satisfied that "I. the premises in respect of which the applica- tion is made are fit for the purpose for which they are used or intended to be used and are so constructed and equipped as to comply with the require- ments of this Act; and II.

that it is in the best interests of the industry that the same should be registered, having regard to the situation and environment of the premises proposed to be registered."

Held, by Latham C.J., Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. (Evatt J. dissenting), that the matters to be taken into account for the purposes of par. II. of the sub-section included not only the physical attributes of the proposed site of the premises but also the effect upon the interests of the industry as a whole which the establishment of the premises at that site would have.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (Full Court) reversed.

58 CLR 300

A. APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

In October 1936 Roy Tasman Diprose applied to the Director of Agriculture for the State of Tasmania for a certificate of registra- tion of a cheese factory at Ringarooma under sec. 6 of the Dairy Produce Act 1932-1935 (Tas.). The Director of Agriculture refused the application in a letter in which he stated: I have to advise that after going fully into the matter I have decided that having regard to the situation and environment of the proposed premises it will not be in the best interests of the industry to grant a certificate of registration for a cheese factory in the Ringarooma district. There does not seem to be any immediate prospect of an extension of the industry in the north-east and the existing factories can deal with more cream than is offering at present. Any decrease in supplies to either of the existing factories must be attended by an increase in overhead charges and consequently a decrease in payments to suppliers." The respondent then appealed to the appeal board appointed under sec. 6 (9) of the Dairy Produce Act and consisting of Peregrine Fellowes Andrews, Roderick George Mackenzie and James Rowland Hilder, which upheld the decision of the director. The decision of the appeal board was conveyed to the respondent by a letter in the following terms: Re Cheese Factory-Ringarooma. After care- fully considering the evidence of Mr. R. T. Diprose, and the North- Eastern Co-op. Dairy Co. of Legerwood, and the Cool Stores, for and against the refusal of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Andrews v Diprose

Details

AGLC: Andrews v Diprose [1937] HCA 70
Case: [1937] HCA 70
Decision Date: 14 December 1937

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute concerned an application by Roy Tasman Diprose for a certificate of registration for a cheese factory under the *Dairy Produce Act 1932-1935* (Tas.). The Director of Agriculture refused the application, and an appeal board upheld this decision. The Supreme Court of Tasmania subsequently granted a writ of mandamus directing the appeal board to determine the appeal according to law.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper interpretation of section 6(3)(II) of the *Dairy Produce Act*. This provision stipulated that a certificate of registration for a proposed factory would not be issued unless the Director of Agriculture was satisfied that it was in the best interests of the industry, "having regard to the situation and environment of the premises proposed to be registered." The question was whether this phrase limited the Director's considerations solely to the physical attributes of the premises and their immediate surroundings, or if it permitted consideration of broader economic and commercial factors affecting the dairy industry as a whole.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Starke, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ., held that the phrase "having regard to the situation and environment of the premises" did not restrict the Director's considerations to only the physical aspects of the site. Instead, they reasoned that these words directed the Director to consider how the proposed factory's location and its surrounding conditions, including economic and commercial factors, would impact the best interests of the dairy industry overall. The Court found that the Director and the appeal board were entitled to consider the potential effect of a new factory on existing ones, supply levels, and producer payments, as these were matters relevant to the industry's best interests. Evatt J., dissenting, argued that the phrase "having regard to the situation and environment" was intended to exclusively define the relevant considerations, limiting them to the physical aspects of the premises and their immediate surroundings, and did not extend to economic competition.

The High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The Court ordered that the writ of mandamus be discharged, meaning the Supreme Court's order for the appeal board to rehear the matter was set aside.

Orders