Cody v J H Nelson Pty Ltd

The appellant, the informant Herbert Bede Cody, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a magistrate who dismissed eight informations against the respondent, J. H. Nelson Pty. Ltd. Seven of these informations alleged offences of selling meat at prices exceeding those fixed by law, while the eighth alleged a failure to keep proper books and accounts as required by regulation 49 of the National Security (Prices) Regulations, thereby constituting "black marketing" under the Black Marketing Act 1942 and its associated regulations. The magistrate found that the transactions in question were not sales but agency arrangements, and consequently dismissed all informations.

The legal issues before the High Court included the validity of regulation 3 of the Black Marketing Regulations, which declared contraventions of regulation 49 of the National Security (Prices) Regulations to be black marketing, and whether the magistrate erred in dismissing the eighth information. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent, as a wholesale butcher, was obligated to maintain proper books and accounts for its business, including any agency transactions, and if the magistrate's finding that agency transactions absolved the company from this duty was correct.

The High Court held that regulation 3 of the Black Marketing Regulations was a valid exercise of the power conferred by section 17(a) of the Black Marketing Act 1942, following the decision in *R. v. Regos*. Regarding the eighth information, the court found that the magistrate's reasoning was flawed. The fact that the respondent acted as an agent in some transactions did not exempt it from the requirement under regulation 49 to keep proper books and accounts for its overall business. The magistrate had failed to consider whether the books kept were proper for the business as a whole, which included both wholesale activities and agency arrangements.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the magistrate's order dismissing the eighth information, and remitted the matter to the Court of Petty Sessions for a rehearing. The court determined that there was a prima facie case to answer regarding the failure to keep proper books and accounts, irrespective of whether the transactions were viewed as sales or agency services.