Bendixen v Coleman - [1943] HCA 40

COMPLAINANT,

COLEMAN, SCOTT, CROFT, AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS, National Security-Price control-Order fixing and declaring maximum price- H.

ulidity-Vagueness and uncertainty-Price of liquor- Bottle "-Sales of liquor by retail Cost " plus 25 per cent-Declaration of goods-Goods " in the possession or under the control of any person in Austratia"-Application of declarationNational Security (Prices) Regulations (S.R. 1940 No. 176-1942 Nov. 25, 26; No. 513), regs. 22, 23 (1) (a) Prices Declaration No. 96-Prices Regulation

The meaning of the word "bottle" in relation to spirituous liquors, as it is used in Prices Regulation Order No. 896 made under the National Security (Prices) Regulations, is not SO vague and uncertain as to make the Order invalid.

So held by Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan and Williams JJ.; Starke J. holding that the Order would be bad for vagueness and uncertainty unless the word " bottle " had a trade meaning in the area to which the Order applies.

By clause 4 of Prices Regulation Order No. 896 the maximum price at which certain non-listed spirituous liquors were permitted to be sold by retail in the Rockhampton area was fixed and declared to be the cost of such non-listed liquors or the ingredients thereof plus 25 per cent of that cost."

Held, by Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan and Williams JJ. (Starke J. dissent- ing), that the meaning of the word " cost " in clause 4, read in relation to the subject matter to which it is applied, is not SO vague and uncertain as to make

Vardon v. The Commonwealth, (1943) 67 C.L.R. 434, distinguished. Factors included in "cost," as used in clause 4, discussed. Prices Declaration No. 96 made under the National Security (Prices) Regula- tions applies to goods in the possession or under the control of a person in Australia whenever they came into his possession or under his control.

68 CLR 402

CASE STATED.

Upon separate complaints made by Edward Bendixen, an officer employed in the Queensland Prices Branch, Department of Trade and Customs, thirteen defendants were charged before a magistrate COLEMAN,

for breaches of reg. 29 (1) (a) of the National Security (Prices) Regula- tions made under the National Security Act 1939-1940.

The offences alleged were that within the Rockhampton area as defined in Prices Regulation Order No. 896 the defendants sold certain declared goods at prices being prices greater than the maxi- mum prices fixed in relation to those goods under the Regulations.

The complaints related variously to sales of whisky, gin, rum, stout, cherry brandy and certain wines.

The magistrate dismissed the complaints and, under S. 226 of The Justices Acts 1886 to 1942 (Q.), in each proceeding stated a case for the opinion of the High Court.

Upon the matters coming on for hearing before the High Court they were, on the basis of similarity of questions involved, grouped into a number of groups.

The first group was subdivided into two sections, a and b. The principal question arising in this group of cases…

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 Bendixen v Coleman

Details

AGLC: Bendixen v Coleman [1943] HCA 40
Case: [1943] HCA 40
Decision Date: 20 December 1943

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved appeals by Edward Bendixen, an officer of the Queensland Prices Branch, against decisions of a magistrate who had dismissed thirteen charges against various defendants. The defendants were accused of selling declared goods at prices exceeding the maximum fixed by the National Security (Prices) Regulations within the Rockhampton area. The alleged contraventions related to sales of whisky, gin, rum, stout, cherry brandy, and certain wines, with the core dispute revolving around the validity and interpretation of Prices Regulation Order No. 896 and related declarations.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the term "bottle" as used in Prices Regulation Order No. 896 was so vague and uncertain as to render the order invalid, and similarly, whether the "cost plus 25 per cent" pricing mechanism for non-listed liquors in clause 4 of the same order suffered from vagueness or uncertainty. The Court also had to consider whether Prices Declaration No. 96, which declared "all goods in the possession or under the control of any person in Australia" as declared goods, applied only to goods in existence at the time of the declaration or also to goods that came into possession or control subsequently. Furthermore, the validity of the regulations and orders in light of sections 99 and 113 of the Constitution was challenged.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan, and Williams JJ., held that the meaning of "bottle" in the context of Prices Regulation Order No. 896 was not so vague as to invalidate the order, particularly when considered with evidence of trade usage. They also found that the "cost plus 25 per cent" pricing mechanism was sufficiently certain. The majority further ruled that Prices Declaration No. 96 applied to goods that came into possession or control at any time after the declaration. Starke J. dissented on the issue of vagueness regarding the term "bottle," finding it invalid unless it had a specific trade meaning in the relevant area.

The Court remitted the cases to the magistrate with its answers. The majority found that the magistrate was wrong in law in dismissing the complaints on the grounds of vagueness and uncertainty concerning the term "bottle" and the cost-plus pricing mechanism. They also determined that Prices Declaration No. 96 applied to goods in possession or control at any time. The constitutional challenges based on sections 99 and 113 of the Constitution were also rejected by the majority.

Orders