Legal Research
Cases
Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead

Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead

Link copied

Case Copied 7 June 1909 89 min read

Contents

On this page

8 CLR 330

HUDDART, PARKER AND CO. PRO-

PRIETARY LIMITED DEFENDANTS, MOOREHEAD APPLETON MELBOURNE,

MOOREHEAD October 15,16,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF March 8, 9,

Commonwealth legislation, validity of-Interference with internal trade and com-

merce of States-Power to make laws with respect to foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth" -Limits of power-Creation of corporations-Control of corporations, their status, capacities and contracts-Inquiry by Comptroller-General of Customs-

8 CLR 331

Compulsory answers-Judicial power of Commonwealth - Trial by jury-Inter state Commission-Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 (No. 9 of 1906) (amended by Australian Industries Preservation Act 1907 (No. 5 of 1908) ), secs. 4, 5, 7, 8, 15B- The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51 (i.) (xx.), 71, 80, 101.

By the whole Court. Sec. 15B of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 (as amended by the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1907) is intra vires the Commonwealth Parliament and valid.

The inquiry authorized by that section is not inconsistent with the right to MOOREHEAD. trial by jury conferred by sec. 80 of the Constitution.

Such an inquiry is not an exercise of the judicial power of the Common- Such an inquiry is not an incident of the execution and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce within the meaning of sec. 101 of the Constitution, and need not be entrusted to the

By the whole Court. Sec. 51 (xx.) of the Constitution does not confer on the Commonwealth Parliament power to create corporations, but the power is limited to legislation as to foreign corporations and trading and financial corporations created by State law.

By the Court, Isaacs J. dissenting. Secs. 5 and 8 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 are ultra vires the Commonwealth Parliament

By Griffith C.J. and Barton J. Sec. 51 (xx.) of the Constitution confers upon the Commonwealth Parliament power to prohibit foreign corporations and trading and financial corporations formed under State laws from engaging in trade and commerce within a State, as distinguished from trade and com- merce between States or with foreign countries, or to impose conditions subject to which they may engage in such trade and commerce, but does not confer upon the Commonwealth Parliament power to control the operations of such corporations which lawfully engage in such trade and commerce.

By O'Connor J. The power conferred by sec. 51 (xx.) of the Constitution is limited to the making of laws with respect to the recognition of corpora- tions as legal entities within the Commonwealth, and does not include a power to make laws for regulating and controlling the business of corporations when once they have been so recognized and are exercising their corporate functions by carrying on business in the Commonwealth.

By Isaacs J. See. 51 (xx.) confers on the Commonwealth Parliament power to control the conduct of the specified corporations in relation to outside persons, but not the powers and capacities of corporations, and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1909] HCA 36
Decision Date: 7 June 1909

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned appeals by Huddart, Parker & Co. Pty Ltd and William Thomas Appleton against their convictions in the Court of Petty Sessions for refusing to answer questions posed by the Comptroller-General of Customs. The questions were requested under section 15B of the *Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906* (as amended), following the Comptroller-General's belief that offences had been committed against various sections of the Act concerning trade in coal. The appellants argued that the relevant sections of the Act were unconstitutional and invalid, and that section 15B itself was invalid.

The High Court was required to determine the constitutional validity of sections 5, 8, and 15B of the *Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906*. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether these provisions, particularly those requiring compulsory answers to the Comptroller-General, unduly interfered with the internal trade and commerce of the States. Furthermore, the Court had to ascertain the scope of the Commonwealth Parliament's power under section 51(xx) of the Constitution to legislate with respect to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the Commonwealth. The validity of the inquiry process under section 15B, in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth and the right to trial by jury, was also a central issue.

The Court, by majority, held that section 15B of the *Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906* was intra vires the Commonwealth Parliament and valid. It was determined that the inquiry authorised by this section was not an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, nor was it inconsistent with the right to trial by jury conferred by section 80 of the Constitution. The majority also found that such an inquiry was not an incident of the execution and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce under section 101. However, there was significant division regarding the scope of section 51(xx) of the Constitution. While the majority held that this section did not grant power to create corporations but was limited to legislating about existing foreign and trading or financial corporations, Griffith C.J. and Barton J. further limited this power to prohibiting or conditioning engagement in trade and commerce, rather than controlling lawful operations. O'Connor J. viewed the power as restricted to recognising corporations as legal entities, not regulating their business. Isaacs J., dissenting on this point, argued for a broader power to control the conduct of these corporations.

The Court also divided on the validity of sections 5 and 8 of the Act. A majority, including Griffith C.J. and Barton J., found these sections ultra vires the Commonwealth Parliament, holding that while section 51(xx) allowed for prohibition or conditioning of trade and commerce, it did not permit control over the operations of corporations lawfully engaging in such trade. Isaacs J. dissented, considering sections 5 and 8 a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's power. Higgins J. also found sections 5 and 8 invalid, characterising them as legislation concerning trade and commerce rather than corporations themselves. The appeals were dismissed, with the convictions upheld.

Orders