GIBBS CJ, MASON, MURPHY, AICKIN AND WILSON JJ Administrative Law - Price fixing - Prices Commission - Public inquiry - Private studies by Commission - "Whether duty to disclose Consulation with Minister - Ascertainment of ministerial policy - Effect on validity of order - Revocation of order - Effect of invalidity of intended new order - Discretionary power - Ministerial order dispensing with public inquiry - Whether duty to give opportunity for submissions - Prices Regulation Act 1948 (N. S.W.), ss. 8B-8F, 9, 13, 15, 20, 58.
BREAD MANUFACTURERS OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND OTHERS v EVANS AND OTHERS
GIBBS CJ The appellants, the plaintiffs in the action in the Supreme Court, are a trade association representing bread manufacturers in New South Wales ("the Association") and five individual bread manufacturers. The object of the appellants in bringing the action was to establish that the maximum price at which bread or bread products might be sold within New South Wales was not, at the time when the proceedings were commenced, the subject of any valid order made by the Prices Commission pursuant to the Prices Regulation Act 1948 (N.S.W.), as amended ("the Act"). For that purpose the appellants sought to show that each of three orders made by the Commission for the purpose of fixing the maximum prices at which bread and bread products might be sold by retail in New South Wales was void, in so far as that order purported to fix and declare the maximum price of the goods specified in it. The orders thus challenged were Prices Regulation Order No. 787 gazetted on 19 November 1979, Prices Regulation Order No. 792 gazetted on 3 March 1980 and Prices Regulation Order No. 798 gazetted on 14 July 1980. Each of these orders commenced by revoking the order which had previously been made by the Commission and was thought to be still in force, and then proceeded to fix the maximum price of the bread and bread products which it described. The argument submitted on behalf of the appellants was that in each case the revocation of the previous order was valid and effective, although the order fixing the price was not.
2. Bread and bread products were at all material times "declared goods" for the purposes of the Act. The Commission therefore had power, under s. 20(1), by order published in the Gazette to fix and declare the maximum price at which those goods might be sold. That power had been exercised by Prices Regulation Order No. 782, made on 30 July 1979 - an order whose validity is not challenged. On 31 July 1979 the Association on behalf of all its members made application to the Commission for an increase in the price of bread. The Commission, by an advertisement published in the Gazette on 17 August 1979, gave notice of its intention to hold an inquiry to determine whether it should exercise any of…
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 Bread Manufacturers of NSW v Evans
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bread Manufacturers of NSW v Evans [1981] HCA 69
Case
[1981] HCA 69
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Bread Manufacturers of New South Wales, along with other bread manufacturers, challenged an order made by the Prices Commission under the *Prices Regulation Act 1948* (NSW). The dispute concerned the validity of this order, which fixed the price of bread, and the procedures followed by the Commission in reaching its decision. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Prices Commission had a duty to disclose private studies it had conducted during its public inquiry into bread prices, and whether the Commission was obliged to consult with the Minister regarding ministerial policy before making its determination. Furthermore, the court had to consider the effect of any such non-disclosure or lack of consultation on the validity of the Commission's order. The court also examined the validity of a subsequent revocation of the original order and the effect of the invalidity of an intended new order on the Commission's discretionary powers, including whether the Minister had a duty to provide an opportunity for submissions when dispensing with a public inquiry.
The High Court determined that the Prices Commission was not under a duty to disclose the private studies it conducted, as these were part of its internal deliberations and fact-finding process. Similarly, the court held that there was no requirement for the Commission to consult with the Minister about ministerial policy, as the Act did not impose such an obligation. The court found that the validity of the order was not affected by the absence of these steps. However, the court did find that the Minister, when exercising the power to dispense with a public inquiry under section 8D of the Act, was required to give interested parties an opportunity to make submissions. The court also considered the effect of the invalidity of an intended new order on the Commission's powers.
The High Court made orders that reflected its findings on the various legal issues. The specific outcome regarding the ultimate validity of the original order and the subsequent revocation, and the consequential relief granted to the parties, would depend on the detailed application of these principles to the facts of the case.