Clements v Bull

In *Clements v Bull*, heard by the High Court of Australia, the applicant challenged the validity of a regulation made by the Melbourne Harbor Trust Commissioners. The regulation prohibited the holding of any meeting or the addressing of any assemblage within the Port of Melbourne without the prior written consent of the Commissioners.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Melbourne Harbor Trust Commissioners possessed the statutory authority under section 138(1)(q) of the *Melbourne Harbor Trust Act 1928* (Vic) to make such a regulation. This section empowered the Commissioners to make regulations for the improvement and management of the port, relating to the conduct and behaviour of persons resorting to the port, and generally for carrying out the objects and purposes of the Act.

The Court considered the scope of the Commissioners' regulatory power. It reasoned that while the Act granted broad powers for the management and improvement of the port, the regulation in question went beyond what was reasonably incidental to those powers. The prohibition on meetings and public addresses, without any qualification as to their nature or potential impact on port operations, was found to be an unreasonable exercise of the power to regulate conduct and behaviour. The Court concluded that the regulation was not a valid exercise of the statutory power conferred by section 138(1)(q) as it unduly restricted public rights without sufficient justification related to the core functions of the port.

The High Court found the regulation to be invalid and made orders accordingly.