Bread Manufacturers of NSW v Evans

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.