Franca & Ors v The W.A. Teachers Financial Society Limited

The applicants, Franca and others, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of Western Australia. The Full Court had dismissed their appeal against a summary judgment granted by Master White in favour of the respondent, The W.A. Teachers Financial Society Limited. The dispute concerned the validity of a certificate issued by a State official, which the applicants argued was irregular and beyond the official's power, and which purportedly validated the acquisition of assets from members of the W.A. Teachers' Credit Society Ltd.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether a certificate, stated by legislation to be conclusive evidence of matters precedent and incidental to the incorporation of a financial society, could be challenged if its issue was irregular or beyond the issuing official's power. The court also had to consider whether such a certificate could give validity to an act not permitted by law, and whether its issuance, in the exercise of a power to impose "conditions and requirements," could effectively direct the acquisition of private assets without the consent of the owners or express parliamentary authority. Finally, the court was asked to consider whether the principles established in *Morton v Union Steam Ship Co* were limited to delegated legislation or extended to powers to impose conditions within substantive enactments.

The applicants contended that the certificate, which led to the acquisition of their assets, was issued irregularly and without proper authority. They argued that the Registrar's appointment of administrators to the Credit Union, which preceded the acquisition, was based on grounds that were not properly certified under the relevant legislation. The applicants sought to challenge the validity of the certificate and the subsequent acquisition, asserting that the Registrar had exceeded his powers and that the certificate could not validate an unlawful acquisition of private property. The court was therefore asked to examine the scope of conclusiveness afforded to such certificates and the extent to which their validity could be questioned on grounds of irregularity or excess of power.