Johnston Fear & Kingham & The Offset Printing Co Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

The parties to this matter were Johnston Fear & Kingham & The Offset Printing Co Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) and the Commonwealth (the defendant). The plaintiff sought damages for conversion of its printing press, alleging that the defendant had unlawfully seized and appropriated the property. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought declarations that the National Security (Supply of Goods) Regulations, under which the defendant purported to act, were invalid. The defendant demurred to the statement of claim. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the National Security (Supply of Goods) Regulations were validly made and, if so, whether they authorised the actions taken by the Commonwealth in acquiring the plaintiff's printing press. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Regulations provided for the acquisition of property on "just terms" as mandated by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, and whether the Regulations were otherwise authorised by the National Security Act 1939-1940.

A majority of the Court (Latham C.J., Rich, Starke, and Williams JJ.) held that the National Security (Supply of Goods) Regulations were invalid. Their reasoning primarily focused on section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, which requires the acquisition of property by the Commonwealth to be on "just terms." The Court found that the Regulations, by providing only for a "price" or "remuneration" for goods and imposing a maximum limit on this price determined by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner, failed to ensure just terms. This was because the term "price" was interpreted as the mere monetary value of the goods, not encompassing full and adequate compensation for any consequential loss or special circumstances of the dispossessed owner. McTiernan J. dissented on the validity of the Regulations, finding them to be authorised by the National Security Act and that the Act itself conferred power to make regulations for the acquisition of property on terms that included just compensation.

The demurrer was overruled, meaning the plaintiff's claim could proceed. The Court found the National Security (Supply of Goods) Regulations to be invalid on the ground that they did not provide for the acquisition of property on "just terms" as required by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.