Bartter's Farms Pty Ltd v Todd - [1978] HCA 36

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Stephen, Jacobs, Murphy and Aickin JJ.

BARTTER'S FARMS PTY. LTD. v. TODD

(1978) 139 CLR 499

22 September 1978

Constitutional Law

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse—Interstate trade—Prohibition of keeping hens without a licence—Hens kept solely for interstate sale of eggs—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92—Egg Industry Stabilisation Act, 1971 (N.S.W.), ss. 16, 17, 18.

Decisions

Sept. 22.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
BARWICK C.J. The Egg Industry Stabilisation Act, 1971 (N.S.W.) ("the Act") places a restriction on the keeping of hens, defined as female domesticated fowls of the genus gallus which are not less than six months old, unless they are broiler breeder hens, defined as a hen which is not one of a list of species of hens and which is used for the purpose of producing broiler chickens, being chickens not intended to be used for the production of eggs. (at p502)

2. The general purpose of the Act is stated to be the stabilization of the egg industry. The limitation and control of the means of production of eggs is a feature of that stabilization. It may be granted that eggs are produced for sale both intrastate and interstate and that a consequence of the limitation of the number of hens kept for the production of eggs will be a limitation of the volume of eggs available for sale, intrastate as well as interstate. (at p503)

3. The plaintiff is engaged in New South Wales in the business of keeping hens for the production of eggs and egg products. It is the holder of a licence under the Act to keep a designated number of hens. In addition to the number of hens covered by the licence, the plaintiff keeps an additional number of hens which are segregated from those covered by the licence. These additional hens are kept in particular sheds. The eggs they produce are exclusively used, either as eggs or as egg products, to perform written contracts held by the plaintiff by which eggs and egg products are sold to buyers located in another State for delivery by the plaintiff from New South Wales into that other State. These contracts are formed by written orders by interstate buyers accepted by the plaintiff. Because of its practice in the segregation of the additional hens and in the devotion of their produce exclusively to the furtherance of its interstate trade in eggs and egg products, the plaintiff believes that it has no need of any licence to keep such additional hens and that keeping them without any licence is lawful. (at p503)

4. The plaintiff commenced a suit in this Court, alleging in a statement of claim, amended during the proceedings, the facts whose substance I have recited, and seeking a declaration that the Act is invalid, or in the alternative that s. 18 (1) (a) (i) thereof is invalid, or in the further alternative that that section is invalid…

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 Bartter's Farms Pty Ltd v Todd 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: [1978] HCA 36
Decision Date: 22 September 1978

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bartter's Farms Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed its appeal from a judgment of the District Court. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for damages arising from the death of a bull, which had allegedly been caused by the respondent's negligence in the supply of feed. The appellant contended that the District Court had erred in finding it liable for the death of the bull.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent had established, on the balance of probabilities, that the feed supplied by the appellant was the cause of the bull's death. This involved considering whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent, whether that duty had been breached, and whether the breach had caused the loss claimed. The court also had to consider the admissibility and weight of expert evidence presented by both parties regarding the cause of the bull's death.

The court ultimately found that the evidence did not establish, to the required standard, that the feed supplied by the appellant was the cause of the bull's death. While acknowledging that the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent, the court concluded that the expert testimony was insufficient to demonstrate a causal link between the feed and the bull's demise. The court noted that the possibility of other causes for the bull's death could not be excluded on the evidence presented.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court and the order of the District Court. The appellant was awarded its costs in the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Orders