Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth - [1955] UKPCHCA 3

f)46HIGH COURT

[1955.

[PRIVY COUNCIL.]

AUSTRALIAN WOOLLEN MILLS PRO

Appellant

PRIETARY LIMITED . .

THE COMMONWEALTH

Respondent.

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF

AUSTRALIA.

Privy

Contract—U’ool—Subsidization—Auction—Purchase for 'purpose of manufacture—

Council

Subsidy by Commonwealth—Promise—Intention—Contractual obligation

1955. Creation—Subsidies paid and subsequently ivithdrawn—Payment of moneys by purchaser to Commonwealth—Claim therefor—“ Moneys had and received" by

Oct. 18-20,

Commonivealth for use of purchaser—“ Bounties ”—“ Production or export of

25-27;

goods."

Nov. 23.The appraisement system set up in war-time under the National Security

Viscount (

Wool) Regulations, and described in Ritchie v. Trustees Executors cfc Agency

Simonds,

Lords OaksPy,

Co. Ltd. (1951) 84 C.L.R. 553 and Squatting Investment Co. Ltd. v. Federal

Reid, Keith

of Avonholm

Commissioner of Taxation (1953) 86 C.L.R. 570, came to an end on 30th .June

and Somerveli

1946, after which the normal practice of selling wool by auction in Australia was resumed. In June 1946 it was announced that the Commonwealth had decided that a “ subsidy ” would be paid to manufacturers on wool purchased and used for local manufacture after 30th June 1946. The appellant company, which was a manufacturer, purchased large quantities of wool for local manufacture in the wool years 1946-1947 and 1947-1948, and received large sums by w-ay of subsidy. Early in 1946 it was announced that subsidies would not be paid on wool purchased after 30th June 1948, and that adjust ments ” would be made on a specified basis as at the date of the “ Christmas close-down ” of factories in 1948. As at that date the company claimed that there had been an underpayment of subsidy to it. The Commonwealth claimed that there had been an overpayment of subsidy to it to the extent of £67,282. After demands for this sum had been made, the company paid £67,282 to the Commonwealth. The pa\Tnent was not paid under protest but it was accompanied by a “ counter-claim ” for £92,002. Later the company commenced an action against the Commonwealth, in which it was

of Harrow.

claimed (i) that a contract by the Commonwealth to pay a subsidy was constituted from time to time by an “ offer ” by the Commonwealth to pav a subsidy and the “ acceptance ” of that offer by the purchase of wool, and that under that contract the sum of £108,871 was owing to it, and (ii) that the sum of £67,282 was recoverable by it as money had and received to its use.

Held (i) that there was not any contract to pay subsidy, and (ii) that the appellant, on the demand of the Commonwealth, paid the said sum of £67,282, voluntarily and with full knowledge of all the material facts, and there was no foundation for a claim for that sum as money had and received or on any other basis.

Decision of the High Court of Australia (Australian Woollen Mills Ply.

Lid. v. The Commonwealth (1954) 92…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1955] UKPCHCA 3
Decision Date: 23 November 1955

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth was an appeal by the manufacturer Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd against the Commonwealth of Australia. The manufacturer claimed that it was entitled to a subsidy on wool purchased for local manufacture from June 1946 to June 1948, following the end of wartime wool sales control by the Commonwealth. The manufacturer argued that the subsidy payments became due under a series of contracts, while the Commonwealth argued that the basis of the scheme was administrative and not contractual.

The central legal issue was whether there was a contractual obligation on the part of the Commonwealth to pay a subsidy to the manufacturer, or if the arrangement was purely administrative. The manufacturer contended that the letters exchanged between the parties constituted contractual offers that were accepted by the purchase of wool. The Commonwealth, however, argued that the letters contained statements of policy rather than contractual offers, and that the scheme was administrative in nature.

The Privy Council, after reviewing the correspondence and the nature of the scheme, concluded that the letters did not constitute offers to contract but rather statements of policy. The scheme was designed to be administrative, with the Commonwealth retaining control over the calculation and payment of the subsidy. The Council also found that the Commonwealth was entitled to demand the repayment of the sum of £67,282, which represented the overpayment of subsidy on wool stocks held by the manufacturer at the end of the scheme.

In conclusion, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appeal and ordering the manufacturer to pay the costs of the appeal. The Court found that there was no contractual obligation for the Commonwealth to pay the subsidy, and that the administrative scheme allowed for the recovery of overpaid amounts.

Orders